@CREvoTheGreat The game is Empire: Total War, which is indeed set in the 18th-early 19th century, not the late 19th. The video looks like someone's attempt to recreate Rourke's Drift in the game, although the game itself is not set in this era. It's actually tremendous fun for fans of military history. The Total War serious in general is terrific.
@RyanBrooksby Of course they aren't native to South Africa. Every nation on earth at one time or another I am sure faced local/region conflicts with neighboring people. What made the British incursion into South Africa however is quite different. For example, I doubt the Zulu had a distaste for the tribes that they were fighting because they were dark skinned, I don't think that there was a collaborative effort to make their fellow Africans subservient because of their race, they didn't try
@RyanBrooksby to impose a culture or religion on their fellow Africans because of a seemingly superior culture ideology, they were not colonized in order to make a nation 3,000 away rich by extracting its resources and people, etc. I can go on and on and on the fact of the matter is the British were there for one reason. To take what was not theirs from a people whom they considered inferior. I don't think the Zulu felt the same way about their fellow Africans as the U.K. felt about them all.
@Hiseman12 utube has it all, including college level a college level thesis on many topics... u gotta problem with that?
my argument here was that it was a far greater tragedy for whites to be dying than inferior negros - don't u agree? i mean would u trade a million negros for a million whites? would u rather live in the Congo or Switzerland? You can pair up 50 examples like this and always side with 1st world white or asian nations, minus north korea of course ;) and Myanmar ;)
@glorp896 In the end the native americans could not stand up to europeans so they lost the USA. That is a fact. No matter which way you slice it. That's the way it is.
@KingAfro88 which is a good thing --- do u want tepees or central air? --- interstates or horse drawn carts --- hell, i don't even think they used wheels... i'm picturing two long logs on either side of the horse running to the ground at about 45 degrees with what they carried in between behind the horse...
i've seen SAT results and even despite the highest of all american boozer rates for indians, along with their greatest poverty rates and lowest longevity they beat negros...
@kakaAChero If your talking about Zulu, they were no savage. Zulu were warriors similar to that of Sparta's military system. They did not fear the bullet or death.
@NewOrleansboii LOL, comparing them to spartans... good one... of all the combat soldiers in WWII it was the jap that was the least likely taken prisoner, fought to the end unlike any other...
@glorp896 Yeah, I'm comparing them to Spartans. Have you ever visited the surround Zulu tribes in SA?
Even to this day, they still value that military style system and its shown in their culture. You may not think so because of your prejudice from the fact that they're black Africans. I however, never doubt anyone's abilities and strengths based on skin color. Not only the Japanese or Zulu, but many great combatants have had braver moments in human history.
@NewOrleansboii relative to their respective ages i would NOT compare the two... compare zulus of the Spartan age (around 420 BC... so the zulus most likely didn't exist as the ebb and flow of various tribes dictated who was labeled what and where... but today they list them as being well over 10 million in and around RSA...
its not prejudice, its scientifically gauged empirical data proving black africans are inferior many times over in many ways - u need to see the data
@NewOrleans skin color is a good starting point, as in its .92 coefficient of correlation (darker = dumber), as well as blacks having smaller less complex brains... the laundry list is long: crime, disease, longevity, illegitimacy, etc... skin color is such an amazingly good correlate for all these and other qualities/characteristics of man that it serves as a highly accurate and convenient generalization whose contrast between other races is more stark than u know
@glorp896 Of course, it's only true for the ignorant and dimwitted. Such as yourself, not hardly surprised by your comment (which will only be said on the internet). Too cowardly to say such in public -- in fear on a reaction from a black. Don't worry, your cognitive abilities is proven in your comment.
@NewOrleansboii don't ignore the data and be ignorant of the probabilities... this is not a dimwitted endeavor as to the empirical basic observational methods... i've said many things in public and included it in my art work; i may have the only car in USA with the word nigger on it... i'm hardly afraid and almost fired from my job after a suspension due to my racism at a place that steals jobs from whites - affirmative action... i've used the word nigger around a HUGE black guy
@NewOrleansboii my cognitive abilities are well intact... feel free to see how well yours are at IQTEST DOT COM... we can compare results...
u just need to see the data and do your racial homework, u can start with a free PDF, "RACE, EVOLUTION AND BEHAVIOR"... to ignore racial differences is to be ignorant and a sign of cognitive impairment but its nearly a mandate and legally enforced by anti-discrimination laws and hate crimes legislation... so lets see your counter evidence
@glorp896 the only racial truth is that race is a social thing. Black is black and white is white and so on only because society puts a name to a characteristic (s). No racial superiority or anything else.
“Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology. Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals. You can read in every textbook on evolution that geographic races of animals, when isolated from other races of their species, may in due time become new species. The terms "subspecies" and "geographic race" are used interchangeably in this taxonomic literature
@glorp896 I am not talking about animals. I am not talking about geographic race. I am talking about human racial identity, which is not geographical, since people of all so-called colors and ethnicities are eerywhere. I mean races as socially defined. Which is why I said earlier, race isn't actually REAL, it is what people say it is.
@williamcarter1993 no, they are biologically defined first and foremost while social construction of race is superficial and far less accurate than are the more shrewd methods of science, which u apparently want to ignore for what reason?
Race is real, it is what science says it is - read Ernst Mayr's "The Biology of Race and the Concept of Equality"
Ernst Mayr, 2002
- if u cant take it from him u can't take if from anyone... u believe what u want, i do not...
@williamc racial superiority is first and foremost biologically driven as a matter of genetic isolation overtime and the obvious differences resulting, like blacks having smaller brains and less complex brains with millions less neurons
to say race is just socially constructed is to be willfully ignorant of the basics of evolutionary biology... black requires more sunlight for Vitamin D production - ok for subsahara, not ok for the north where white skin requires less sun
@glorp896 Are you high? Blacks having smaller brains? If you actually believe that, you're an embarrassment to biologists everywhere. Despite what you may think, there is no racial superiority. And when I say that, I don't mean by adaptation. I mean in the fact that some inherently think people of one ethnicity/color are better/smarter/stronger than another for the mere fact of the difference in pigmentation.
@williamcarter1993 read the bottom of my books list... i can give u a more formal listing of that peer review work if u want. u can find it free online at RACE, EVOLUTION AND BEHAVIOR...
as to being high, it is in no relation to the basic observational data of smaller black brains and besides i'm a teetotaler vegan and drug free...
u r REALLY lying to yourself and putting it on display... were u a biology major like me?
@williamcarter1993 u r simply grossly ignorant on this topic and that is as the media and school system want it to be... brain size, hormone levels, disease (behavioral and genetic), longevity, IQ, illegitimacy rates, wealth, invention... this list can be made MUCH longer as i have seen data by race on all these issues and much more, even loan failure rates follow this typical american pattern: black, hispanic, white, asian...
@williamcarter1993 Using external head measures from tens of thousands of men and women from around the world collated by the International Labour Office, Rushton (1994) found that Asians, Europeans, and Africans averaged 1,308, 1,297, and 1,241 cm3, respectively. Finally, an MRI study in Britain found that people of African and of Caribbean background averaged a smaller brain volume than did those of European background (Harvey et al., 1994).
@williamcarter1993 Using endocranial volume, Beals et al. (1984) analyzed about 20,000 skulls from around the world and found that East Asians, Europeans, and Africans averaged cranial volumes of 1,415, 1,362, and 1,268 cm3 respectively. Using external head measurements from a stratified random sample of 6,325 U.S. Army personnel, Rushton (1992) found that Asian Americans, European Americans, and African Americans averaged 1,416, 1,380, and 1,359 cm3, respectively.
@williamcarter1993 Consider the following statistically significant comparisons (sexes combined) from recently conducted studies using the four techniques mentioned above. Using brain mass at autopsy, Ho et al. (1990) summarized data for 1,261 individuals. They reported a mean brain weight of 1,323 grams for White Americans and 1,223 grams for Black Americans. - r these last three posts good enough for you? many of these "blacks" had white in them, so african black is smaller
@KingAfro88 is it an honor to have an IQ about 30 points lower? look at richard lynn's global IQ charts, quite obviously the inferiors were the negros...
i would never save a 1000 morons at the expense of the average white brit...
that is what u are calling for...
africa is PEARLS BEFORE SWINE (MAT. 7:6) and needs to be run by whites/asians, not a bunch of stupid negros...
@glorp896 Anyone with a good honest heart that is willing to defend their homes and families is ok in my book. Do you really think the zulu begged brits or the boers? I highly doubt it. If they feared guns the bulk of them would have ran away. I am just glad the Zulu did not back down like the Natives in America.
@KingAfro88 the natives backed down? perhaps u should read about the BATTLE OF LITTLE BIG HORN? and besides, in both cases, the Custer one and the african one, the superiors (whites) were out numbered greatly...
@glorp896 I already know about that battle. I watched a reenactment of a native american battle on youtube. I have the trail of tears book. They taught me native american history in school. So I don't need you to teach me anything about native american history. My sister is the smartest one in her class. Out of all the students. They took my sister for nursing school. My sister had a 4.0 in high school and has a 4.0 in college right now. Her white friends are failing out of the RN class.
@KingAfro88 neato and yes, sometimes blacks beat whites, but your anecdotal single sample story is meaningless to the averages and distribution comparisons between groups/races/colors...
but i'm glad some blacks make it, otherwise the SEND THEM BACK idea is in order - might be anyway, even despite USA blacks having over 17% white genetic material as per Molecular anthropologist Mark D. Shriver... fathersmanifesto link on my channel outlines some of the reasons...
@KingAfro88 u r hardly black, u could get a DNA test, they are cheap these days to confirm what percents u may have... interestingly some can test 0% black african, so apparently they don't go back too far or the eurasian model of white/asian development divorces these two other races from blacks even more than we knew, as to challenging the OUT OF AFRICA theory... u r loaded with white, same with your sister, right? why ignore the white in u and call yourself and relatives black?
@glorp896 Funny part is my sister has blue eyes and we all know it takes two blue eyed genes from both parents to make blue eyes. Myself having light eyes too. It makes me wonder how white I really am.I wish I could connect myself to africa but I might not be able to. Being that black males mixing with white females was at a all time low back then. I may very well have a white male ancestor through my father's father line. The only one that looked like he had white in him was my father's father.
@KingAfro88 interesting, so your parents are both darker than you?... this is common and happens often, that traits and genetic legacies can skip... i have a dark skinned roommate, darker than you from india, he is the darkest of his brother, mother and father and has a very dark grandma
there is a puerto rican at work, at least as dark as the average black american but he showed me his AS WHITE as u can be sister, so the averaging of chromatic scale for skin color has its range!
@KingAfro88 in any case blue and green eyes are more beautiful to me... brown is boring... be glad u don't have the typical eyes of the world as brown is the most common... i like very bright eyes... i told this lady at my doctor's office to look up MEG FOSTER as they both have very bright eyes...
we had a news story of a black bus driver, darker than you, who had VERY bright eyes, i mean it was SUCH a contrast, more so than whites with bright eyes for sure, like teeth as well...
@glorp896 He is a old man now. I have pictures of him back in 1948. He was also in Vietnam. He has very good computer and mechanical skills. So he fixed helicopters during Vietnam draft. He can also drive 18 wheeler trucks.
@KingAfro88 the stats i've read years ago have been 89-90% of blacks have some white in them in USA, but quite obviously this number is going up fast... miscegenation and cross breeding it going up not to mention the numbers the higher they go the faster closer to 100% of USA blacks will have some white in them...
@glorp896 I can trace all of my family trees back to northwestern europe on my mother's side. That would be French, English, Irish, and Scottish. My stepfather is German, Norwegian, and Irish. My father is black with some white in him. Not a lot tho. It was not like he was mulatto or anything. What ever was in my father gave us the blue eyed gene.
@KingAfro88 i'm 1/8th dutch and scottish, irish and english in very even mixture (1/32nd more irish than scottish)... so i bet were related!
step dad? come on, that doesn't matter... we r talking genes bro, yours
u may be a very interesting rare breed, it would be interesting to see the odds chance of your eyes occurring, as in what genetic odds based bottleneck your lineage went through to get to your eye color. green eyes and strawberry blonde hair is the most beautiful to me
@glorp896 Ok, I think understand what you mean. You are basically saying....give me a second. I know what bottleneck means but how it relates to genes you are saying that the brown eyes were some how suppressed and you flew right by me dude. I'm just saying. Could you say that in layman english please? LMAO!
@KingAfro88 "The actual number of genes that contribute to eye color is currently unknown, but there are a few likely candidates. A study in Rotterdam (2009) found that it was possible to predict the color of eyes with more than 90% accuracy for brown and blue, using just six SNPs (from six genes).[13 - from wiki, "EYE COLOR" - real interesting... look it up... amber eye color, which is orange?! never knew of this, interesting... that lady with bright blue eyes is like that cat!
@KingAfro88 i have some red hair in my background and actually when using hydrogen peroxide on my dirty blond hair some slight red color had shown up, like i discovered a bit of the irish taint within... my brother shows slightly more red tint (taint as i call it because of NW europe the irish are the lowest of the low, as per the numbers... its not like ireland is loaded with red hairs, but they do have more than any other country by percentage...
@glorp896 Are you talking about more like red highlights that show up in the sun? If so my sister has that and my mother use to have that before the grey set in. I don't have any. Nor does my brother. My stepfather had light hair. So your hair is a mix of deeper color blonde and red. Pretty cool. I was thinking about taking a african DNA test that could link me to my tribe. They say out of all the people who took the test 35% of them have white DNA. I know a mulatto who has white DNA on youtube.
@KingAfro88 thats right, if i get enough sun and grow my hair longer it not only shows more blond but also a red tint... but like u say i have grey mixing in these days at 45...
i've seen DNA data from at least 10 cities as to blacks being tested... it was only about 100 per city but New Orleans blacks had the most white, over 20%...
@KingAfro88 its enough to have 90%+ predictability, which i'm surprised by now that dont have more accurate odds based predictions for eye color knowing both parents...
the DNA tests are below $200... shop around if really interested... i will do it some day in the future as our DNA history is more accurately mapped out and testing may be cheaper still, as technology goes these days into the future... even so my history is so well searched there should be very little surprise...
@glorp896 We find African ancestry for approximately 65% of the paternal lineages we test. The remaining 35% of the lineages we test typically indicate European ancestry. If our tests indicate that you are not of African descent, we will identify your continent of origin.
@glorp896 I was never the smart one in the family. Are you want to see the chances of me getting green eyes is low or high. That you want to see the chances of the green eyed bottle neck forming for me. In other words you want to see what my genetic makeup is. Which I did not even know there were test that you could run that can tell you that. I mean I knew there were DNA test but damn. I did not know that there were test that could tell you the chances of your eye color being giving to you tho.
@KingAfro88 maybe some day we can have designer babies - u pick and choose all your superficial traits for your kids, they won't even have to look like u...
THE BRAVE NEW WORLD awaits, as our morality and ethics will be increasingly challenged... i can't imagine eye color matters much, but as to darker colors this might make a difference as to light reflection and such?... there of course must be some real practical advantage or disadvantage aside from just esthetics...
Rubbish game, cant even get uniforms right!! also, the rifles were not these powder type as shown, they were Martini Henry Rifles and could be loaded in seconds. Waste of time playing this game.
This reminds me of Monty Python scene when a guy was charging over a hill at gaurds and he seemingly wasn't moving an inc for like 2minutes and then he came out of nowhere and stabbed them :P.
Do you think the British would have agreed to peace if they had lost Isandlwana? Of course not. They invaded Zululand from 3 directions, intent on consolidating South Africa as a way to cut costs since their economy was crap after the US Civil War cut off the supply of cotton to their textile mills. Your history is very off. It was not the British main column. That had been tricked by a Zulu maneuver and were off chasing ghosts, while a Zulu army outflanked them and attacked a smaller force.
@mechanussunrise No. by 1879 14 years had passed since ACW economic effects on British economy would have been zero. British didn't "agree to peace" with Zulus they inflicted it on them destroying their power & unity dividing up Zululand between 13 Chiefs. British only reluctantly invaded Zululand as Zulus were becoming expensive nuisance threatening British expansion of trade. Zulus also threatened existence of Boer Republics to the north & east. Zulus murder & plundering meant they had to go.
The single main factor in the defeat of British at Isandhlwana was failure of base camp to laager. This meant B face Zulus in the open in unprepared positions. Volley fire not effective resulting in British being overrun my Zulu numbers. Consider how a mere 170 British soldiers survived a subsequent battle at Rork’s Drift 12 miles away later that day & night where they did fight from a prepared position even if somewhat precarious one and won
Do you think the British would have agreed to peace if they had lost Isandlwana? Of course not. They invaded Zululand from 3 directions, intent on consolidating South Africa as a way to cut costs since their economy was crap after the US Civil War cut off the supply of cotton to their textile mills. Your history is very off. It was not the British main column. That had been tricked by a Zulu maneuver and was off chasing ghosts, while a Zulu army outflanked them and attacked a smaller force.
In history it is a minor battle with no significance whatsoever. Not denying however the bravery and the tactics of the victors there. However there are other two reasons why it has so much marketing today:
1. It is interesting, since an inferior army overwhelmed a superior one.
2. The demographic and media advance of the african people turns the interest to this victory of the past. The democratic explosion of the african peoples is the real victory and not in the past but today.
The 'main British column' marched off with General Chelmsford and missed the battle completely. Only 800 British, 400 native troops and an assortment of cooks etc were left at the camp at Isandlwana when it was attacked by the 20,000 zulus. Far from the 'main British column' it was actually only a small percentage of the total number. In fact the main British column then smashed the zulus in a number of large battles and won the war.
British uniforms were very wrong - it belonged to 18th century not the late 19th century - correct uniform is that of white tropical helmet and late 19th century style uniform.
@SPACENIINJAx it seems you get you knowledge of the battle of somme from that ww1 video game you play but for a ww1 battle that was a typical body count. at the phillipines it wasnt that the japanese killed off the british defenders it was that the japenese pyschologicaly defeated the british and small amounts of japenese soldiers made tens of thousands of british soldiers simply surrender
if you ask me the greatest british defeat was at the phillipine islands in ww2 like 5,000 japanese troops seized an island with 20,000 british soldiers on it
5000? That's most definately a lie. Japan always outnumbered the British colonies, attacking with at least a hundred thousand men. Remember that Japan occupied China, so they MUST have a good population. (not anymore...)
@WolfytheWolf5667 actually if you decided to check your facts the british out numbered the japs. i was just saying in one instance of the battle 5000 japenese soldiers made 20,000 british surrender. overall 100,000 british surrendered which was utterly shameful
the British didn't outnumber the Japanese. I've seen it. From many accounts, it said "the British having only 15,000 men there, were totally unprepared for the massive amount of Japanese forces."
And what about the hundreds of thousands of Germans who surrended to Allied forces?
and Japan also didn't surrender due to A-Bomb's. They surrended because of the Battle of Manchuria.
@WolfytheWolf5667 you are completely false the british nearly stopped the japs at one of their beaches they landed at the japenese were in fact out numbered. the greatest german soldier surrender other than at the very end was after stalingrad were nearly 250,000 germans surrendered at once. they knew waht they were going against they had no ammo it was the middle of winter and they were completely sourounded. the japs literally mad the british think their was more of them than there really was
@xmarks97 It was the Battle of Singapore where 36,000 Japs defeated 85,000 Brits. Churchill called it the worst disaster & largest capitulation in British history. It was a case of the Japanese being so aggressive the Brits thought they were outnumbered. The Malayan Campaign was similar with 70,000 Japs defeating 140,000 Brits-the Japs used bicycles to speed through the jungle & pop up way before the Brits thought they could. Philippines also had a smaller number of Japs defeat more Americans.
@RogCBrand The start of the War in the Pacific area was a huge shock to the Allies and all too often the Japanese were able to use extreme aggression to overwhelm larger forces. When one side's forces are buoyed by success after success, and the other is stinging from defeat after defeat, morale becomes a huge factor. The Allies needed time to shake it off and come to their senses after so many blows.
@RogCBrand Quite true but it was Churchill's fault. It takes time to train & build an army and he kept diverting troops there when all was lost. Some arrived in time to walk off the troopships into prison camps. One guy got back to his unit from a weekend pass and found they had all gone and nobody knew where. In 1947 he met one of his friends on bus in London & found they had all been sent to Singapore and his best friend - "a quiet classics scholar" had died on the Burma railway.
@freebeerfordworkers It had to be so hard for so many back then- having many, many friends lost in a short time! Today, most of us rarely ever have a young and healthy family member or friend die, and when it happens it's a huge shock!
I have a neighbor who was a young Dutch boy living in Java at the start of the war- his father worked for some oil company. Anyway, they were all sent to a prison camp for many years and he had some family die there!
@RogCBrand He also blocked the deployment of modern fighters there. The RAF est 600 were needed b. he gave them to Russia instead. They tried to send 200 Hurricanes behind his back he found out & "tore off" the RAF.
In his memoirs Churchill wrote - roughly "It no more occurred to me there would be no landward defenses than a battleship would not have a bottom" but "I should have asked/known". But as Chancellor in 1928 he cancelled their construction to save money so if he did not know who did?
@freebeerfordworkers It sounds like what the U.S. seemed to do also! We had so much obsolete equipment deployed across the Pacific!
But yeah, it is ironic that Churchill was the one that cancelled the construction of the landward defenses! Perhaps he truly forgot about what must have seemed a rather minor thing years earlier, or maybe he did remember but didn't want to shine a light on his own mistake- that's rather typical of all politicians!
Actually Asian RAF was a modern one. Given (reluctantly by B) to Stalin to stop whining about lack of allied aid. So 2 modern air forces in Asia the other USAF in Philippines which the criminally incompetent Macarthur allowed to be destroyed. Asian RAF flies off who’s job it had been to protect B battleships POW & Repulse who’s job it was to provide artillery support to B army in the event of Jap invasion. So RAF flies off, USAF destroyed, Battleships sunk & Japs own Asia for a while
@Protojoe912 Over time it became a victory, but the initial offensive which was aimed to smash the German lines, failed. It took repeated engagements and many thousands of lifes to finally "claim" victory, but for a time it was looking like a failure for the British. I'm done with commenting on the video, if you wish to go look for were for more evidence, go wikipedia the Battle of the Somme. Overall the video was pretty good, could use some work but other then that I like the effort you used.
Looks like Shaka Zulu knew the Art of War. Not the book but his knowledge, his instincts, the ins and outs and strategies of war. He was the greatest african military strategist and scientist. lol
@Hardrada88 What was his name? Do you know his unit? I must have seen his grave although very few there are marked with names or units- just piles of white painted rocks over their bones. Take that trip, you'll remember it for the rest of your life .
@ngiyaxolisa Yep, H company 1st Bt 24th. I'm thinking if I can save up enough maybe guest the DieHards if they ever go there (again?) i'd like to see it from the zulu perspective also
Amazing Story of triumph and loss.....but the British will never talk about the New Zealand wars where they discovered the Natives (Maori) their were just as savage and smart...the british lost more battles than they could count,the Maori simply lost because of the numbers the british had....over 1,000,000 sent to N.Z to pacify the Maori,The Maori also invented TRENCH warfare which the British used in WW1......Just shows the other cultures were well ahead in warfare as well,thats my 2 cents :)
@TheFifanacho One million? Did that leave anyone left in England? After all the Afrikaners faced fewer than that number of regulars in the Second Anglo-Boer War and with respect to the Maori, the Boers were a lot tougher a nut to crack. A typo on your part perhaps?
when they say worst defeat they mean worst defeat of a modern army against a "native" army with spears, knives etc. Up until that time they never were defeated against an army like that.
Kinda like how the United States sent 56,000 of its young to die in the jungles of Vietnam. Kinda like how Canada has sent hundreds to die in the defence of invasion from the United States in 1812. Are you being deliberately stupid? What other age group you planning on sending into battle?
And not brave? Rorke's Drift? Less than 150 men against 6,000 Zulus. Any man who stood and fought in linear warfare was a brave man. I doubt anyone today would do the same.
@Oberst543 Yea, it may be the greatest massacre of the British army, but I think that the surrender of Singapore to the Japanese was the worst military disaster in British history. I find it more sickening to just surrender when you have superior numbers.....
@AmphibiousTurd It was a win, but it took 4 months to win the Battle and the Casulties on both sides were devistating, it severely effected the outcome of the war and it hurt British morale more then the battle of Isandlwana but in the amount of casulties the battle of Isandlwana was a horrible defeat on the account that 98% of the British died. My point is essentially this was the worst defeat in British history caused by Africans.
@Oberst543 British dead on the first day of the Somme were around 20,000, with another approximately 40,000 wounded. You are correct that it was the worst day in British military history. When I was a teenager, I read a book on the battle called "The Big Push". It was grim reading and I could hardly bring myself to finish it, and yet, the Battle of the Somme was only one event in the whole terrible four years on that front.
@totalwarruler The Offense that the British launched at the beginning of the Battle was a defeat, it resulted into the battle becoming a stalemate between the 2 sides for the remainder of the Battle. The British did eventually beat the Germans, but at the cost of their "Surprise Offensive" and thousands of lifes.
@Oberst543 The somme was a phyyric victory, the worst defeat would be the surrender of 90,000 to 30,000 japanese at Singapore, a defeat that reduced British power in the far east to rubble.
@jackass40mile You do have a point, the complete capitulation of Singapore was a terrible loss for the British in WW2. You are right in the fact that it is a pyrrhic victory for the British, but for an offense it was for the time being a stalemate between the 2, keep in mind I made this comment over 6 months ago and didn't really put too much effort into looking for additional facts to look at. But I will not be replying to anymore messages, thanks for the reply though.
what game is this?
u'd think they'd do some research on what era the brit army was in.
CREvoTheGreat 6 days ago
@CREvoTheGreat The game is Empire: Total War, which is indeed set in the 18th-early 19th century, not the late 19th. The video looks like someone's attempt to recreate Rourke's Drift in the game, although the game itself is not set in this era. It's actually tremendous fun for fans of military history. The Total War serious in general is terrific.
elcbent 4 days ago
The soldiers depicted are from the 18th century not the nineteenth but I liked the music.
Nukethelotofthem1 1 week ago
@Spartakkus11127 It's the Crimson tide theme
TheMart96 1 month ago
so lag
samsonpau 1 month ago
name of the game featured in this clip. please..
DiscothecaImperialis 2 months ago
@DiscothecaImperialis It could be or Napoleon Total War or Empire Total War
39519590 2 months ago
However you look at it war is stupid and gets all the best people killed.
There has to be a better way of getting people to come to peace than down the end of a gun barrel.
Were all on the same planet and will have to come to grips with it sooner or later.
zenoist2 2 months ago
@zenoist2 how would you have convinced hitler to come to peace?
BlackMasterRoshi 1 month ago
@zenoist2 i would say this is 'all the best people' winning and only the sand nigger scum getting killed:
/watch?v=Nw7_7SmlmMU#t=03m25s
Subjugator1866 1 month ago
@Subjugator1866 Are they sand niggers because they were defending their country against an invader that sought to exploit and colonize them?
edavismookie25 2 weeks ago
@edavismookie25 no. THIS is why they are sand niggers:
/watch?v=wJR3keih6CQ#t=01m20s
Subjugator1866 2 weeks ago
@edavismookie25
you know Zulu's AREN'T from S.Africa, right?
Zulu's originate from C.Africa, and are actually an invading Empire the same as the British.
Ask any modern day Zulu (yes they do exist) they're not native to S.Africa where the battles were fought.
RyanBrooksby 1 week ago
@RyanBrooksby Of course they aren't native to South Africa. Every nation on earth at one time or another I am sure faced local/region conflicts with neighboring people. What made the British incursion into South Africa however is quite different. For example, I doubt the Zulu had a distaste for the tribes that they were fighting because they were dark skinned, I don't think that there was a collaborative effort to make their fellow Africans subservient because of their race, they didn't try
edavismookie25 1 week ago
@RyanBrooksby to impose a culture or religion on their fellow Africans because of a seemingly superior culture ideology, they were not colonized in order to make a nation 3,000 away rich by extracting its resources and people, etc. I can go on and on and on the fact of the matter is the British were there for one reason. To take what was not theirs from a people whom they considered inferior. I don't think the Zulu felt the same way about their fellow Africans as the U.K. felt about them all.
edavismookie25 1 week ago
@edavismookie25
What?
Chaka Zulu gave that land to Britain.
Shaka Zulu killed him and tried to take the land away.
Britain only defended what land was, politically theirs.
RyanBrooksby 1 week ago
I have three nipples! can't explain that with science, so therere my theory is that
rockleeisdabest 2 months ago
@rockleeisdabest You got 3 nipples? You must be inbred then haha.
VonTavast 2 months ago
I thought i was on youtube, not reading a college thesis on Brains
Hiseman12 2 months ago
@Hiseman12 utube has it all, including college level a college level thesis on many topics... u gotta problem with that?
my argument here was that it was a far greater tragedy for whites to be dying than inferior negros - don't u agree? i mean would u trade a million negros for a million whites? would u rather live in the Congo or Switzerland? You can pair up 50 examples like this and always side with 1st world white or asian nations, minus north korea of course ;) and Myanmar ;)
glorp896 2 months ago
@Hiseman12
So do I, sir. So do I.
AlexSDU 2 months ago
I'm sure you mean: your cognitive ability.
Mmmm,it would appear that your grammar is also a little shaky haha!
alanvt1 2 months ago
Natives in America didn't back down they were killed off from genocide
nevafrass 2 months ago
@nevafrass there were overwhelmingly killed off by white microorganisms, hardly genocide... i'd call it war, as in the SIOUX WARS...
glorp896 2 months ago
@glorp896 In the end the native americans could not stand up to europeans so they lost the USA. That is a fact. No matter which way you slice it. That's the way it is.
KingAfro88 2 months ago
@KingAfro88 which is a good thing --- do u want tepees or central air? --- interstates or horse drawn carts --- hell, i don't even think they used wheels... i'm picturing two long logs on either side of the horse running to the ground at about 45 degrees with what they carried in between behind the horse...
i've seen SAT results and even despite the highest of all american boozer rates for indians, along with their greatest poverty rates and lowest longevity they beat negros...
glorp896 2 months ago
This is how the blacks Lear.ed to respect the gun
nevafrass 3 months ago
@nevafrass More like it was the other way around. Did we end up like the natives in America? Nah...
KingAfro88 2 months ago
just wish we had time travel to send a bunch of AK-47s to the brits to help slaughter the massive hoard of inferiors...
damn, some times great minds are encountered by superior violent opposition from mediocre minds
glorp896 3 months ago
@glorp896 It
KingAfro88 2 months ago
@KingAfro88 ??
glorp896 2 months ago
savages
kakaAChero 4 months ago
@kakaAChero If your talking about Zulu, they were no savage. Zulu were warriors similar to that of Sparta's military system. They did not fear the bullet or death.
NewOrleansboii 4 months ago
@NewOrleansboii was talking about the brits as well
kakaAChero 3 months ago
@NewOrleansboii LOL, comparing them to spartans... good one... of all the combat soldiers in WWII it was the jap that was the least likely taken prisoner, fought to the end unlike any other...
glorp896 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@glorp896 Yeah, I'm comparing them to Spartans. Have you ever visited the surround Zulu tribes in SA?
Even to this day, they still value that military style system and its shown in their culture. You may not think so because of your prejudice from the fact that they're black Africans. I however, never doubt anyone's abilities and strengths based on skin color. Not only the Japanese or Zulu, but many great combatants have had braver moments in human history.
NewOrleansboii 3 months ago
@NewOrleansboii relative to their respective ages i would NOT compare the two... compare zulus of the Spartan age (around 420 BC... so the zulus most likely didn't exist as the ebb and flow of various tribes dictated who was labeled what and where... but today they list them as being well over 10 million in and around RSA...
its not prejudice, its scientifically gauged empirical data proving black africans are inferior many times over in many ways - u need to see the data
glorp896 2 months ago
@NewOrleans skin color is a good starting point, as in its .92 coefficient of correlation (darker = dumber), as well as blacks having smaller less complex brains... the laundry list is long: crime, disease, longevity, illegitimacy, etc... skin color is such an amazingly good correlate for all these and other qualities/characteristics of man that it serves as a highly accurate and convenient generalization whose contrast between other races is more stark than u know
glorp896 2 months ago
@glorp896 Of course, it's only true for the ignorant and dimwitted. Such as yourself, not hardly surprised by your comment (which will only be said on the internet). Too cowardly to say such in public -- in fear on a reaction from a black. Don't worry, your cognitive abilities is proven in your comment.
NewOrleansboii 2 months ago
@NewOrleansboii don't ignore the data and be ignorant of the probabilities... this is not a dimwitted endeavor as to the empirical basic observational methods... i've said many things in public and included it in my art work; i may have the only car in USA with the word nigger on it... i'm hardly afraid and almost fired from my job after a suspension due to my racism at a place that steals jobs from whites - affirmative action... i've used the word nigger around a HUGE black guy
glorp896 2 months ago
@NewOrleansboii my cognitive abilities are well intact... feel free to see how well yours are at IQTEST DOT COM... we can compare results...
u just need to see the data and do your racial homework, u can start with a free PDF, "RACE, EVOLUTION AND BEHAVIOR"... to ignore racial differences is to be ignorant and a sign of cognitive impairment but its nearly a mandate and legally enforced by anti-discrimination laws and hate crimes legislation... so lets see your counter evidence
glorp896 2 months ago
@NewOrleansboii can't post comment on your channel? blocked me? blocking the racial truth of things?
glorp896 2 months ago
@glorp896 the only racial truth is that race is a social thing. Black is black and white is white and so on only because society puts a name to a characteristic (s). No racial superiority or anything else.
williamcarter1993 2 months ago
@williamc “There are no human races."
“Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology. Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals. You can read in every textbook on evolution that geographic races of animals, when isolated from other races of their species, may in due time become new species. The terms "subspecies" and "geographic race" are used interchangeably in this taxonomic literature
glorp896 2 months ago
@glorp896 I am not talking about animals. I am not talking about geographic race. I am talking about human racial identity, which is not geographical, since people of all so-called colors and ethnicities are eerywhere. I mean races as socially defined. Which is why I said earlier, race isn't actually REAL, it is what people say it is.
williamcarter1993 2 months ago
@williamcarter1993 no, they are biologically defined first and foremost while social construction of race is superficial and far less accurate than are the more shrewd methods of science, which u apparently want to ignore for what reason?
Race is real, it is what science says it is - read Ernst Mayr's "The Biology of Race and the Concept of Equality"
Ernst Mayr, 2002
- if u cant take it from him u can't take if from anyone... u believe what u want, i do not...
glorp896 2 months ago
@williamc racial superiority is first and foremost biologically driven as a matter of genetic isolation overtime and the obvious differences resulting, like blacks having smaller brains and less complex brains with millions less neurons
to say race is just socially constructed is to be willfully ignorant of the basics of evolutionary biology... black requires more sunlight for Vitamin D production - ok for subsahara, not ok for the north where white skin requires less sun
glorp896 2 months ago
@glorp896 Are you high? Blacks having smaller brains? If you actually believe that, you're an embarrassment to biologists everywhere. Despite what you may think, there is no racial superiority. And when I say that, I don't mean by adaptation. I mean in the fact that some inherently think people of one ethnicity/color are better/smarter/stronger than another for the mere fact of the difference in pigmentation.
williamcarter1993 2 months ago
@williamcarter1993 read the bottom of my books list... i can give u a more formal listing of that peer review work if u want. u can find it free online at RACE, EVOLUTION AND BEHAVIOR...
as to being high, it is in no relation to the basic observational data of smaller black brains and besides i'm a teetotaler vegan and drug free...
u r REALLY lying to yourself and putting it on display... were u a biology major like me?
of course there is racial superiority beyond skin
glorp896 2 months ago
@williamcarter1993 u r simply grossly ignorant on this topic and that is as the media and school system want it to be... brain size, hormone levels, disease (behavioral and genetic), longevity, IQ, illegitimacy rates, wealth, invention... this list can be made MUCH longer as i have seen data by race on all these issues and much more, even loan failure rates follow this typical american pattern: black, hispanic, white, asian...
jews are number one
u r clueless, a liar
glorp896 2 months ago
@williamcarter1993 Using external head measures from tens of thousands of men and women from around the world collated by the International Labour Office, Rushton (1994) found that Asians, Europeans, and Africans averaged 1,308, 1,297, and 1,241 cm3, respectively. Finally, an MRI study in Britain found that people of African and of Caribbean background averaged a smaller brain volume than did those of European background (Harvey et al., 1994).
glorp896 2 months ago
@williamcarter1993 Using endocranial volume, Beals et al. (1984) analyzed about 20,000 skulls from around the world and found that East Asians, Europeans, and Africans averaged cranial volumes of 1,415, 1,362, and 1,268 cm3 respectively. Using external head measurements from a stratified random sample of 6,325 U.S. Army personnel, Rushton (1992) found that Asian Americans, European Americans, and African Americans averaged 1,416, 1,380, and 1,359 cm3, respectively.
glorp896 2 months ago
@williamcarter1993 Consider the following statistically significant comparisons (sexes combined) from recently conducted studies using the four techniques mentioned above. Using brain mass at autopsy, Ho et al. (1990) summarized data for 1,261 individuals. They reported a mean brain weight of 1,323 grams for White Americans and 1,223 grams for Black Americans. - r these last three posts good enough for you? many of these "blacks" had white in them, so african black is smaller
glorp896 2 months ago
@glorp896 Still killed you all like dogs and I would gladly go back in time to die for the Zulu. I would be an honor to become a Zulu.
KingAfro88 2 months ago
@KingAfro88 is it an honor to have an IQ about 30 points lower? look at richard lynn's global IQ charts, quite obviously the inferiors were the negros...
i would never save a 1000 morons at the expense of the average white brit...
that is what u are calling for...
africa is PEARLS BEFORE SWINE (MAT. 7:6) and needs to be run by whites/asians, not a bunch of stupid negros...
glorp896 2 months ago
@KingAfro88 Its a far greater honor to be a representative of BRITANNIA...
glorp896 2 months ago
@glorp896 Anyone with a good honest heart that is willing to defend their homes and families is ok in my book. Do you really think the zulu begged brits or the boers? I highly doubt it. If they feared guns the bulk of them would have ran away. I am just glad the Zulu did not back down like the Natives in America.
KingAfro88 2 months ago
@KingAfro88 the natives backed down? perhaps u should read about the BATTLE OF LITTLE BIG HORN? and besides, in both cases, the Custer one and the african one, the superiors (whites) were out numbered greatly...
glorp896 2 months ago
@glorp896 I already know about that battle. I watched a reenactment of a native american battle on youtube. I have the trail of tears book. They taught me native american history in school. So I don't need you to teach me anything about native american history. My sister is the smartest one in her class. Out of all the students. They took my sister for nursing school. My sister had a 4.0 in high school and has a 4.0 in college right now. Her white friends are failing out of the RN class.
KingAfro88 2 months ago
@KingAfro88 neato and yes, sometimes blacks beat whites, but your anecdotal single sample story is meaningless to the averages and distribution comparisons between groups/races/colors...
but i'm glad some blacks make it, otherwise the SEND THEM BACK idea is in order - might be anyway, even despite USA blacks having over 17% white genetic material as per Molecular anthropologist Mark D. Shriver... fathersmanifesto link on my channel outlines some of the reasons...
glorp896 2 months ago
@KingAfro88 u r hardly black, u could get a DNA test, they are cheap these days to confirm what percents u may have... interestingly some can test 0% black african, so apparently they don't go back too far or the eurasian model of white/asian development divorces these two other races from blacks even more than we knew, as to challenging the OUT OF AFRICA theory... u r loaded with white, same with your sister, right? why ignore the white in u and call yourself and relatives black?
glorp896 2 months ago
@glorp896 Funny part is my sister has blue eyes and we all know it takes two blue eyed genes from both parents to make blue eyes. Myself having light eyes too. It makes me wonder how white I really am.I wish I could connect myself to africa but I might not be able to. Being that black males mixing with white females was at a all time low back then. I may very well have a white male ancestor through my father's father line. The only one that looked like he had white in him was my father's father.
KingAfro88 2 months ago
@KingAfro88 interesting, so your parents are both darker than you?... this is common and happens often, that traits and genetic legacies can skip... i have a dark skinned roommate, darker than you from india, he is the darkest of his brother, mother and father and has a very dark grandma
there is a puerto rican at work, at least as dark as the average black american but he showed me his AS WHITE as u can be sister, so the averaging of chromatic scale for skin color has its range!
glorp896 2 months ago
@glorp896 Even tho all black americans have some foreign blood in them. Plus my mother is white.
KingAfro88 2 months ago
@KingAfro88 in any case blue and green eyes are more beautiful to me... brown is boring... be glad u don't have the typical eyes of the world as brown is the most common... i like very bright eyes... i told this lady at my doctor's office to look up MEG FOSTER as they both have very bright eyes...
we had a news story of a black bus driver, darker than you, who had VERY bright eyes, i mean it was SUCH a contrast, more so than whites with bright eyes for sure, like teeth as well...
glorp896 2 months ago
@KingAfro88 maybe u should look up HYBRID VIGOR...
glorp896 2 months ago
@glorp896 I have a few family pictures video. Here is a picture of my stepfather. He has blue eyes like my sister.
KingAfro88 2 months ago
@glorp896 He is a old man now. I have pictures of him back in 1948. He was also in Vietnam. He has very good computer and mechanical skills. So he fixed helicopters during Vietnam draft. He can also drive 18 wheeler trucks.
KingAfro88 2 months ago
@KingAfro88 i wish i had more skills
glorp896 2 months ago
@KingAfro88 the stats i've read years ago have been 89-90% of blacks have some white in them in USA, but quite obviously this number is going up fast... miscegenation and cross breeding it going up not to mention the numbers the higher they go the faster closer to 100% of USA blacks will have some white in them...
glorp896 2 months ago
@glorp896 I can trace all of my family trees back to northwestern europe on my mother's side. That would be French, English, Irish, and Scottish. My stepfather is German, Norwegian, and Irish. My father is black with some white in him. Not a lot tho. It was not like he was mulatto or anything. What ever was in my father gave us the blue eyed gene.
KingAfro88 2 months ago
@KingAfro88 i'm 1/8th dutch and scottish, irish and english in very even mixture (1/32nd more irish than scottish)... so i bet were related!
step dad? come on, that doesn't matter... we r talking genes bro, yours
u may be a very interesting rare breed, it would be interesting to see the odds chance of your eyes occurring, as in what genetic odds based bottleneck your lineage went through to get to your eye color. green eyes and strawberry blonde hair is the most beautiful to me
glorp896 2 months ago
@glorp896 Ok, I think understand what you mean. You are basically saying....give me a second. I know what bottleneck means but how it relates to genes you are saying that the brown eyes were some how suppressed and you flew right by me dude. I'm just saying. Could you say that in layman english please? LMAO!
KingAfro88 2 months ago
@KingAfro88 "The actual number of genes that contribute to eye color is currently unknown, but there are a few likely candidates. A study in Rotterdam (2009) found that it was possible to predict the color of eyes with more than 90% accuracy for brown and blue, using just six SNPs (from six genes).[13 - from wiki, "EYE COLOR" - real interesting... look it up... amber eye color, which is orange?! never knew of this, interesting... that lady with bright blue eyes is like that cat!
glorp896 2 months ago
@glorp896 Pretty cool that we might be related tho. In a far off way.
KingAfro88 2 months ago
@glorp896 My great great great grandma had red hair. So did my dead uncle Chuck. Plus one of my cousin's children have red hair too.
KingAfro88 2 months ago
@KingAfro88 i have some red hair in my background and actually when using hydrogen peroxide on my dirty blond hair some slight red color had shown up, like i discovered a bit of the irish taint within... my brother shows slightly more red tint (taint as i call it because of NW europe the irish are the lowest of the low, as per the numbers... its not like ireland is loaded with red hairs, but they do have more than any other country by percentage...
glorp896 2 months ago
@glorp896 Are you talking about more like red highlights that show up in the sun? If so my sister has that and my mother use to have that before the grey set in. I don't have any. Nor does my brother. My stepfather had light hair. So your hair is a mix of deeper color blonde and red. Pretty cool. I was thinking about taking a african DNA test that could link me to my tribe. They say out of all the people who took the test 35% of them have white DNA. I know a mulatto who has white DNA on youtube.
KingAfro88 2 months ago
@KingAfro88 thats right, if i get enough sun and grow my hair longer it not only shows more blond but also a red tint... but like u say i have grey mixing in these days at 45...
i've seen DNA data from at least 10 cities as to blacks being tested... it was only about 100 per city but New Orleans blacks had the most white, over 20%...
glorp896 2 months ago
@glorp896 That's what they said on the page.
KingAfro88 2 months ago
@glorp896 6 genes.... That sounds pretty cool. That is a not a lot of genes tho.
KingAfro88 2 months ago
@KingAfro88 its enough to have 90%+ predictability, which i'm surprised by now that dont have more accurate odds based predictions for eye color knowing both parents...
the DNA tests are below $200... shop around if really interested... i will do it some day in the future as our DNA history is more accurately mapped out and testing may be cheaper still, as technology goes these days into the future... even so my history is so well searched there should be very little surprise...
glorp896 2 months ago
@glorp896 Or maybe it was a 35% chance that I could come out with white DNA. I need to read that page again.
KingAfro88 2 months ago
@glorp896 That is if you have two black parents. I think that is what they meant. I am not sure.
KingAfro88 2 months ago
@glorp896 We find African ancestry for approximately 65% of the paternal lineages we test. The remaining 35% of the lineages we test typically indicate European ancestry. If our tests indicate that you are not of African descent, we will identify your continent of origin.
KingAfro88 2 months ago
@glorp896 I am going to look up what SNPs mean. Lol!
KingAfro88 2 months ago
@glorp896 I was never the smart one in the family. Are you want to see the chances of me getting green eyes is low or high. That you want to see the chances of the green eyed bottle neck forming for me. In other words you want to see what my genetic makeup is. Which I did not even know there were test that you could run that can tell you that. I mean I knew there were DNA test but damn. I did not know that there were test that could tell you the chances of your eye color being giving to you tho.
KingAfro88 2 months ago
@KingAfro88 maybe some day we can have designer babies - u pick and choose all your superficial traits for your kids, they won't even have to look like u...
THE BRAVE NEW WORLD awaits, as our morality and ethics will be increasingly challenged... i can't imagine eye color matters much, but as to darker colors this might make a difference as to light reflection and such?... there of course must be some real practical advantage or disadvantage aside from just esthetics...
glorp896 2 months ago
Rubbish game, cant even get uniforms right!! also, the rifles were not these powder type as shown, they were Martini Henry Rifles and could be loaded in seconds. Waste of time playing this game.
GRACEORT 4 months ago
This reminds me of Monty Python scene when a guy was charging over a hill at gaurds and he seemingly wasn't moving an inc for like 2minutes and then he came out of nowhere and stabbed them :P.
kelman221 4 months ago
@boia1998 Empire Total War
RavenDestroyer 5 months ago
Do you think the British would have agreed to peace if they had lost Isandlwana? Of course not. They invaded Zululand from 3 directions, intent on consolidating South Africa as a way to cut costs since their economy was crap after the US Civil War cut off the supply of cotton to their textile mills. Your history is very off. It was not the British main column. That had been tricked by a Zulu maneuver and were off chasing ghosts, while a Zulu army outflanked them and attacked a smaller force.
mechanussunrise 5 months ago
@mechanussunrise No. by 1879 14 years had passed since ACW economic effects on British economy would have been zero. British didn't "agree to peace" with Zulus they inflicted it on them destroying their power & unity dividing up Zululand between 13 Chiefs. British only reluctantly invaded Zululand as Zulus were becoming expensive nuisance threatening British expansion of trade. Zulus also threatened existence of Boer Republics to the north & east. Zulus murder & plundering meant they had to go.
MartinIDavies 4 months ago
The single main factor in the defeat of British at Isandhlwana was failure of base camp to laager. This meant B face Zulus in the open in unprepared positions. Volley fire not effective resulting in British being overrun my Zulu numbers. Consider how a mere 170 British soldiers survived a subsequent battle at Rork’s Drift 12 miles away later that day & night where they did fight from a prepared position even if somewhat precarious one and won
MartinIDavies 4 months ago
Do you think the British would have agreed to peace if they had lost Isandlwana? Of course not. They invaded Zululand from 3 directions, intent on consolidating South Africa as a way to cut costs since their economy was crap after the US Civil War cut off the supply of cotton to their textile mills. Your history is very off. It was not the British main column. That had been tricked by a Zulu maneuver and was off chasing ghosts, while a Zulu army outflanked them and attacked a smaller force.
mechanussunrise 5 months ago
In history it is a minor battle with no significance whatsoever. Not denying however the bravery and the tactics of the victors there. However there are other two reasons why it has so much marketing today:
1. It is interesting, since an inferior army overwhelmed a superior one.
2. The demographic and media advance of the african people turns the interest to this victory of the past. The democratic explosion of the african peoples is the real victory and not in the past but today.
gyozop 5 months ago
The 'main British column' marched off with General Chelmsford and missed the battle completely. Only 800 British, 400 native troops and an assortment of cooks etc were left at the camp at Isandlwana when it was attacked by the 20,000 zulus. Far from the 'main British column' it was actually only a small percentage of the total number. In fact the main British column then smashed the zulus in a number of large battles and won the war.
thebigJM92 6 months ago
British uniforms were very wrong - it belonged to 18th century not the late 19th century - correct uniform is that of white tropical helmet and late 19th century style uniform.
DavBlc7 6 months ago
This video is hogwash. Any military historian worth his or her salt will blow it out of the water in the first few seconds....
composmentos 6 months ago
the music is the Crimson Tide Theme by Hans Zimmer, from the Movie Crimson Tide, in case any1 wonders
Jaceric2 7 months ago
is this age of empires 3
jalen77232 8 months ago
As always the lose of many good men for the stupid ideas of one man. On both sides.
Magister0017 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SPACENIINJAx it seems you get you knowledge of the battle of somme from that ww1 video game you play but for a ww1 battle that was a typical body count. at the phillipines it wasnt that the japanese killed off the british defenders it was that the japenese pyschologicaly defeated the british and small amounts of japenese soldiers made tens of thousands of british soldiers simply surrender
xmarks97 9 months ago
if you ask me the greatest british defeat was at the phillipine islands in ww2 like 5,000 japanese troops seized an island with 20,000 british soldiers on it
xmarks97 9 months ago
@xmarks97
5000? That's most definately a lie. Japan always outnumbered the British colonies, attacking with at least a hundred thousand men. Remember that Japan occupied China, so they MUST have a good population. (not anymore...)
WolfytheWolf5667 9 months ago
@WolfytheWolf5667 actually if you decided to check your facts the british out numbered the japs. i was just saying in one instance of the battle 5000 japenese soldiers made 20,000 british surrender. overall 100,000 british surrendered which was utterly shameful
xmarks97 8 months ago
@xmarks97
the British didn't outnumber the Japanese. I've seen it. From many accounts, it said "the British having only 15,000 men there, were totally unprepared for the massive amount of Japanese forces."
And what about the hundreds of thousands of Germans who surrended to Allied forces?
and Japan also didn't surrender due to A-Bomb's. They surrended because of the Battle of Manchuria.
WolfytheWolf5667 8 months ago
@WolfytheWolf5667 you are completely false the british nearly stopped the japs at one of their beaches they landed at the japenese were in fact out numbered. the greatest german soldier surrender other than at the very end was after stalingrad were nearly 250,000 germans surrendered at once. they knew waht they were going against they had no ammo it was the middle of winter and they were completely sourounded. the japs literally mad the british think their was more of them than there really was
xmarks97 8 months ago
@xmarks97 It was the Battle of Singapore where 36,000 Japs defeated 85,000 Brits. Churchill called it the worst disaster & largest capitulation in British history. It was a case of the Japanese being so aggressive the Brits thought they were outnumbered. The Malayan Campaign was similar with 70,000 Japs defeating 140,000 Brits-the Japs used bicycles to speed through the jungle & pop up way before the Brits thought they could. Philippines also had a smaller number of Japs defeat more Americans.
RogCBrand 8 months ago
@RogCBrand The start of the War in the Pacific area was a huge shock to the Allies and all too often the Japanese were able to use extreme aggression to overwhelm larger forces. When one side's forces are buoyed by success after success, and the other is stinging from defeat after defeat, morale becomes a huge factor. The Allies needed time to shake it off and come to their senses after so many blows.
RogCBrand 8 months ago
@RogCBrand Quite true but it was Churchill's fault. It takes time to train & build an army and he kept diverting troops there when all was lost. Some arrived in time to walk off the troopships into prison camps. One guy got back to his unit from a weekend pass and found they had all gone and nobody knew where. In 1947 he met one of his friends on bus in London & found they had all been sent to Singapore and his best friend - "a quiet classics scholar" had died on the Burma railway.
freebeerfordworkers 5 months ago
@freebeerfordworkers It had to be so hard for so many back then- having many, many friends lost in a short time! Today, most of us rarely ever have a young and healthy family member or friend die, and when it happens it's a huge shock!
I have a neighbor who was a young Dutch boy living in Java at the start of the war- his father worked for some oil company. Anyway, they were all sent to a prison camp for many years and he had some family die there!
RogCBrand 5 months ago
@RogCBrand He also blocked the deployment of modern fighters there. The RAF est 600 were needed b. he gave them to Russia instead. They tried to send 200 Hurricanes behind his back he found out & "tore off" the RAF.
In his memoirs Churchill wrote - roughly "It no more occurred to me there would be no landward defenses than a battleship would not have a bottom" but "I should have asked/known". But as Chancellor in 1928 he cancelled their construction to save money so if he did not know who did?
freebeerfordworkers 5 months ago
@freebeerfordworkers It sounds like what the U.S. seemed to do also! We had so much obsolete equipment deployed across the Pacific!
But yeah, it is ironic that Churchill was the one that cancelled the construction of the landward defenses! Perhaps he truly forgot about what must have seemed a rather minor thing years earlier, or maybe he did remember but didn't want to shine a light on his own mistake- that's rather typical of all politicians!
RogCBrand 5 months ago
Actually Asian RAF was a modern one. Given (reluctantly by B) to Stalin to stop whining about lack of allied aid. So 2 modern air forces in Asia the other USAF in Philippines which the criminally incompetent Macarthur allowed to be destroyed. Asian RAF flies off who’s job it had been to protect B battleships POW & Repulse who’s job it was to provide artillery support to B army in the event of Jap invasion. So RAF flies off, USAF destroyed, Battleships sunk & Japs own Asia for a while
MartinIDavies 4 months ago
Why are the dragoons using standard musket?Aren't they using cavalry carbine?
The Anglo-Zulu War's infantry and cavalry all used martini henry rifle,this is Brown Bess Musket!!!
andrew71417 9 months ago
*The Zulus were killing every Regiment they would reach* ... There was only one Regiment at the battle..........
LordWellington15 9 months ago
the zulu army was actually well over 40,000 men.
ultradumbass 9 months ago
i think this battle was called The French Revolution
chockn 9 months ago
@Protojoe912 Over time it became a victory, but the initial offensive which was aimed to smash the German lines, failed. It took repeated engagements and many thousands of lifes to finally "claim" victory, but for a time it was looking like a failure for the British. I'm done with commenting on the video, if you wish to go look for were for more evidence, go wikipedia the Battle of the Somme. Overall the video was pretty good, could use some work but other then that I like the effort you used.
Oberst543 11 months ago
Looks like Shaka Zulu knew the Art of War. Not the book but his knowledge, his instincts, the ins and outs and strategies of war. He was the greatest african military strategist and scientist. lol
SudanCarib 11 months ago
My great grandfathers father was at Isandlwana, saving now so I can go to the battlesite and see whereabouts he was killed. nice video
Hardrada88 11 months ago
@Hardrada88 What was his name? Do you know his unit? I must have seen his grave although very few there are marked with names or units- just piles of white painted rocks over their bones. Take that trip, you'll remember it for the rest of your life .
ngiyaxolisa 11 months ago
@ngiyaxolisa Yep, H company 1st Bt 24th. I'm thinking if I can save up enough maybe guest the DieHards if they ever go there (again?) i'd like to see it from the zulu perspective also
Hardrada88 11 months ago
@seventhsamuel the mounted contingent had martini/henry carbines but the Imperial infantry had the martini/henry rifle.
skittification 1 year ago
Amazing Story of triumph and loss.....but the British will never talk about the New Zealand wars where they discovered the Natives (Maori) their were just as savage and smart...the british lost more battles than they could count,the Maori simply lost because of the numbers the british had....over 1,000,000 sent to N.Z to pacify the Maori,The Maori also invented TRENCH warfare which the British used in WW1......Just shows the other cultures were well ahead in warfare as well,thats my 2 cents :)
bronzemen34 1 year ago
@bronzemen34
The maximum number of pakeha under organised arms was around 18 000, including settlers' militias. Got google??
dunrudin 11 months ago
epic
TheFifanacho 1 year ago
@TheFifanacho One million? Did that leave anyone left in England? After all the Afrikaners faced fewer than that number of regulars in the Second Anglo-Boer War and with respect to the Maori, the Boers were a lot tougher a nut to crack. A typo on your part perhaps?
ngiyaxolisa 11 months ago
whats the game ? i no its a total war game but what one
1GregsVids1 1 year ago
This is empire total war. how have you got the zulus on ?
Scottk95 1 year ago
what song is this?
alabarloplop 1 year ago
The men are seen napoleonic uniforms and firing muskets!!!!........This film is totally inaccurate....sort it out
beltfeedspandau 1 year ago
when they say worst defeat they mean worst defeat of a modern army against a "native" army with spears, knives etc. Up until that time they never were defeated against an army like that.
iamincredible2 1 year ago
This is one of worsts examples you could do , muslism for zulus ? Rockets in that battle ? ....
oOIYvYIOo 1 year ago
for those in peril on the sea
laytonj519 1 year ago
nice vid
thebndmanager 1 year ago
Well done. However, this is what the british get for being imperialists.
The british have a history of killing their young on distant unecessary battlefields.
When you look at it the british are not really a brave or smart lot.
reece45 1 year ago
@reece45
Kinda like how the United States sent 56,000 of its young to die in the jungles of Vietnam. Kinda like how Canada has sent hundreds to die in the defence of invasion from the United States in 1812. Are you being deliberately stupid? What other age group you planning on sending into battle?
And not brave? Rorke's Drift? Less than 150 men against 6,000 Zulus. Any man who stood and fought in linear warfare was a brave man. I doubt anyone today would do the same.
TheDarkFrontier 1 year ago
@reece45 arnt you meaning the ruling classes arnt smart and very few are brave
w3evil 1 year ago
what game?
MrVietwarhero 1 year ago
it was 1879 not 1789 the period is wrong for that battle
oldstuffandcollect 1 year ago
really well made, awesome vid. "Fix bayonets and prepare to die like english men die!" - last command given at Isandlwana
captaintrizer 1 year ago
Comment removed
Oberst543 1 year ago 8
@Oberst543 i meanas a % nearly 98% losses in a single battle
thewrightbrotherz 1 year ago 4
@thewrightbrotherz Now I understand, thanks for clarifying things.
Oberst543 1 year ago
@thewrightbrotherz i played TW for over 4-5 years and never had to deal with the loss of an entire Army in a single battle
RavenDestroyer 5 months ago
@Oberst543 Yea, it may be the greatest massacre of the British army, but I think that the surrender of Singapore to the Japanese was the worst military disaster in British history. I find it more sickening to just surrender when you have superior numbers.....
rulebritannia9 1 year ago
@Oberst543 but the somme was a win
AmphibiousTurd 1 year ago
@AmphibiousTurd It was a win, but it took 4 months to win the Battle and the Casulties on both sides were devistating, it severely effected the outcome of the war and it hurt British morale more then the battle of Isandlwana but in the amount of casulties the battle of Isandlwana was a horrible defeat on the account that 98% of the British died. My point is essentially this was the worst defeat in British history caused by Africans.
Oberst543 1 year ago
@Oberst543
But the Somme wasn't a defeat?
TheDarkFrontier 1 year ago
@Oberst543 British dead on the first day of the Somme were around 20,000, with another approximately 40,000 wounded. You are correct that it was the worst day in British military history. When I was a teenager, I read a book on the battle called "The Big Push". It was grim reading and I could hardly bring myself to finish it, and yet, the Battle of the Somme was only one event in the whole terrible four years on that front.
MarsFKA 1 year ago
@MarsFKA The Big Push sounds like an amateur gay erotic novel
GZizzone 1 year ago
@GZizzone Sounds like you know all about that sort of thing. Your favourite kind of reading, is it?
MarsFKA 1 year ago
@Oberst543 More like the worst defeat of an imperial army.
TheDrJosh 1 year ago
@Oberst543
The somme wasnt a british defeat. It was totally in decisive!
mwillis1000 1 year ago
@Oberst543 worst defeat by by "blacks"...u mean Africans???
mikemarc92 1 year ago
@Oberst543 no isandlwana was the worst defeat.... at somme, the british captured a reasonable amount of ground, making more, a pyric victory.
totalwarruler 1 year ago
@totalwarruler The Offense that the British launched at the beginning of the Battle was a defeat, it resulted into the battle becoming a stalemate between the 2 sides for the remainder of the Battle. The British did eventually beat the Germans, but at the cost of their "Surprise Offensive" and thousands of lifes.
Oberst543 1 year ago
@totalwarruler I believe that the Massacre of the 44th regiment of the foot during the First anglo-afghan was the worst defeat.
sovietunion1922 1 year ago
@Oberst543 I think it means worst defeat in British history at the time.
f14af14a 1 year ago
@Oberst543 they got owned and dogged. They Zulus were just the better army that day
DaAmericanWanksta 11 months ago
@Oberst543 The somme was a phyyric victory, the worst defeat would be the surrender of 90,000 to 30,000 japanese at Singapore, a defeat that reduced British power in the far east to rubble.
jackass40mile 10 months ago
@jackass40mile You do have a point, the complete capitulation of Singapore was a terrible loss for the British in WW2. You are right in the fact that it is a pyrrhic victory for the British, but for an offense it was for the time being a stalemate between the 2, keep in mind I made this comment over 6 months ago and didn't really put too much effort into looking for additional facts to look at. But I will not be replying to anymore messages, thanks for the reply though.
Oberst543 10 months ago
@Oberst543 wrong 60,000 people were injured!!!!!!
only 20,000 died
MrTolleMolle 10 months ago