Black empire list:-Nubia(kush)-1070 BC-AD 350-Ghana Empire (Wagadou Empire home to 30,000)-c. 830–c. 1235-MALI EMPIRE-c1230 to c. 1600- SONGHAI-c.1340 – 1591-Ife(Nigeria)-c.560-1600- BENIN CITY-C1440–1897 - ETHIOPIA-Aksum (1st c. BC–10th c. AD)-Great Zimbabwe Empire- c. 1430–1760- NOK- 1000 B.C-500 AD-Hausa-C.800-1805-KONGO-1400–1914 -Visit ending stereotypes for America(dot)org for more information.
The mighty Zulu warriors were the most fearsome tribe of South Africa. The Zulus are believed to have descended from the patriarch Zulu, the son of a powerful Nguni chief who ruled in the Congo Basin of Central Africa. They were one of the mightiest rulers then, defeating their enemies easily with their military innovations.
i would not advise a trip to the republic since we defeated all interlopers and made thyyenglish sue for peace on our terms despite the war crimes of the black and tans typicly engli good for hanging children from trees i lost 17 on both sides of my family @ovenkid GO BRAITH
The Zulu won 1 battle and they make a movie about it. The Brits won the war and buillt a modern nation. Now Whites in Southern Africa are being murdered and driven off their property. Nobody says anything. Hollywood is fucked.
This film got very critical reviews in 1979 when it came out. In no way can it compare to the 1964 film Zulu - even if, ironically enough, this film is more historically accurate.
@gtk4158a Actually rorkes drift was a welsh battalion (not english) who fought to the death as was their duty and not completely for revenge mmore self preservation. Plus after the loss at isandhlawana the british wished revenge and a way to safe face after the defeat and hunted down the Zulu's for the deaths at isandhlawana not because the english would not accept terms
@rhodsym643 Sorry, even a cursory check of the facts would show that the 2nd Royal Warwickshire was an English battalion, the majority of the men were English, and its regimental marching song was "the Warwickshire Lad". It had a depot in Monmouthshire, then part of England. It became the South Wales Borderers in the 1880s. So no, not a Welsh battalion.
Too extensive a perimeter too few men. They had to shorten their lines as in Rorke's Drift. Notice that their flanks are unprotected as is the rear. That made encirclement easy. Why a general can't see that is beyond me. He'd been told to form a circle prior to the attack and ignored it. I also don't understand what they were doing going around shooting kids who were just shepherding herds.
They do reckon that the main reason for the loss was due to the guns overheated and expanding and not shooting + ammo not reaching the frontlines, It was proved that at the fire rate and numbers that they would have won easily otherwise.
Zulu's were bloody fearless though, I doubt very few people today would charge into a firing line.
Olden day soldiers were the same, expected to stand in line with the enemy stood a few yards ahead pointing their guns at you.
Even though i'm english i say fair play to those zulus they showed alot of courage during the time, but in the end we did eventualy annihilate them all.
@tsofchilda I agree. Bloody uncivilised dogs who won by numbers, not by the intelligence. Terrible ending, but it was nice to see the redcoats put some solid lead into those bastards.
@CapitaineGuynemer Not true - any student of the battle will agree that the Zulus outmanouvered the british, fooling Chelmsford to leave his camp and split his force, then executed a tightly controlled encircling attack that lured the british into sending out a firing line, which was then outflanked in the horns of the buffalo. Even the british accounts pay tribute to the skill of the Zulu skirmishing and movement.
That said, they were brutal in killing everyone, so I take your point.
@THthefirst True. If they had done a wagon lager, as was the standing order it would have been much different battle. As it was, based upon the piles of brass left behind, a critical but understandable error in maneuverability left a gap in the English line that the Zulu exploited. No Monday morning quarterbacking here, it's a mistake I would have easily made also. It was one of those times where the "text book" answer was wrong. With a lager, it would have worked, either way.
@SharpenedScalpel Nothing to do with me, I was born more than 100 years later so I did not have anything to do with these people, except happen to be born in the same country a century later. As for the british actions at the time, I agree, they were wrong, but then at the time people had different values. The Zulus did exactly the same thing to rival tribes which is why they became so powerful. Regardless of race, the strong will often exploit the weak. Sad but true.
After seeing the movie it did remind me of the little big horn and custer , the brittish assumed that the zulu warriors could be defeated since they had guns and cannons just like custer , they did not think that overwhelming numbers would be there downfall
@CB750k5 It is interesting to compare Custer and Chelmsford. Chelmsford was an aristocrat, while Custer was the son of a blacksmith. Chelmsford was slow, plodding and cautious, Custer mercurial. But both made the same mistake by splitting their command without proper recon of the enemy's position.
@ImperialistRunningDo Yes both men at the time thought they would be the big winners of the battle , there thoughts of glory overshadow there common sense
Isandlwana was to the British empire what the Little Big Horn was to the U.S. A shock, the revenge of which would be terrible. Not shown in the movie was the fact I believe that at the height of the battle a almost total eclipse of the sun occurred. \so for 15 minutes this was almost a night battle.
A good first-hand account of the battle can be found in the book "In Zululand with the British, throughout the War of 1879" By Charles L. Norris-Newman ("Noggs" in the film).
goten7615 What was the Boer's advice again?...
KevinOBrienIRE 2 weeks ago
that song, it so powerful!!
Lavrentizodiac 3 weeks ago
if they had followed the boers advice, they would have had a chance at survival.
goten7615 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Black empire list:-Nubia(kush)-1070 BC-AD 350-Ghana Empire (Wagadou Empire home to 30,000)-c. 830–c. 1235-MALI EMPIRE-c1230 to c. 1600- SONGHAI-c.1340 – 1591-Ife(Nigeria)-c.560-1600- BENIN CITY-C1440–1897 - ETHIOPIA-Aksum (1st c. BC–10th c. AD)-Great Zimbabwe Empire- c. 1430–1760- NOK- 1000 B.C-500 AD-Hausa-C.800-1805-KONGO-1400–1914 -Visit ending stereotypes for America(dot)org for more information.
oo77i 2 months ago
The mighty Zulu warriors were the most fearsome tribe of South Africa. The Zulus are believed to have descended from the patriarch Zulu, the son of a powerful Nguni chief who ruled in the Congo Basin of Central Africa. They were one of the mightiest rulers then, defeating their enemies easily with their military innovations.
Gwada9 2 months ago
@Gwada9 they wud hav never been so great with out the GREAT ELEPHANT. SHAKA !
maulimaul5AM 2 months ago
i would not advise a trip to the republic since we defeated all interlopers and made thyyenglish sue for peace on our terms despite the war crimes of the black and tans typicly engli good for hanging children from trees i lost 17 on both sides of my family @ovenkid GO BRAITH
briodyjohnsean 3 months ago
Aside from the movie, I like the Zulu chants and singing. Does anyone know if the portrayal of these is accurate?
absue 4 months ago
@absue the portrayals are accurate. King Goodwill and Chief Buthelezi were used as consultants.
Dluck7 2 months ago
@Dluck7 Thank you.
absue 2 months ago
The Zulu won 1 battle and they make a movie about it. The Brits won the war and buillt a modern nation. Now Whites in Southern Africa are being murdered and driven off their property. Nobody says anything. Hollywood is fucked.
brianspost75 4 months ago
This film got very critical reviews in 1979 when it came out. In no way can it compare to the 1964 film Zulu - even if, ironically enough, this film is more historically accurate.
alanheath 4 months ago 7
@alanheath i agree. it took them too long too fight
maulimaul5AM 2 months ago
Rhodsymn643
50 of them were british, 40 were welsh and 30 were from different parts of the empire
ovenkid 4 months ago
@ovenkid The Welsh are British you ignoramous. I think you mean '50 were English and 40 were Welsh'.
Edgey1988 4 months ago
@gtk4158a Actually rorkes drift was a welsh battalion (not english) who fought to the death as was their duty and not completely for revenge mmore self preservation. Plus after the loss at isandhlawana the british wished revenge and a way to safe face after the defeat and hunted down the Zulu's for the deaths at isandhlawana not because the english would not accept terms
rhodsym643 5 months ago
@rhodsym643 Sorry, even a cursory check of the facts would show that the 2nd Royal Warwickshire was an English battalion, the majority of the men were English, and its regimental marching song was "the Warwickshire Lad". It had a depot in Monmouthshire, then part of England. It became the South Wales Borderers in the 1880s. So no, not a Welsh battalion.
THthefirst 2 months ago
Too extensive a perimeter too few men. They had to shorten their lines as in Rorke's Drift. Notice that their flanks are unprotected as is the rear. That made encirclement easy. Why a general can't see that is beyond me. He'd been told to form a circle prior to the attack and ignored it. I also don't understand what they were doing going around shooting kids who were just shepherding herds.
Radrook 5 months ago
They do reckon that the main reason for the loss was due to the guns overheated and expanding and not shooting + ammo not reaching the frontlines, It was proved that at the fire rate and numbers that they would have won easily otherwise.
Zulu's were bloody fearless though, I doubt very few people today would charge into a firing line.
Olden day soldiers were the same, expected to stand in line with the enemy stood a few yards ahead pointing their guns at you.
People these days don't match.
RenegadeOfSociety 6 months ago
Even though i'm english i say fair play to those zulus they showed alot of courage during the time, but in the end we did eventualy annihilate them all.
wk2k11 6 months ago 3
@wk2k11 twat
briodyjohnsean 3 months ago
congrats zulu
slavonacandrija 6 months ago
fuck the zulu
tsofchilda 8 months ago
@tsofchilda I agree. Bloody uncivilised dogs who won by numbers, not by the intelligence. Terrible ending, but it was nice to see the redcoats put some solid lead into those bastards.
CapitaineGuynemer 8 months ago
@CapitaineGuynemer Not true - any student of the battle will agree that the Zulus outmanouvered the british, fooling Chelmsford to leave his camp and split his force, then executed a tightly controlled encircling attack that lured the british into sending out a firing line, which was then outflanked in the horns of the buffalo. Even the british accounts pay tribute to the skill of the Zulu skirmishing and movement.
That said, they were brutal in killing everyone, so I take your point.
THthefirst 7 months ago 11
@THthefirst True. If they had done a wagon lager, as was the standing order it would have been much different battle. As it was, based upon the piles of brass left behind, a critical but understandable error in maneuverability left a gap in the English line that the Zulu exploited. No Monday morning quarterbacking here, it's a mistake I would have easily made also. It was one of those times where the "text book" answer was wrong. With a lager, it would have worked, either way.
Roddog61 2 months ago
@THthefirst well, basically mate, you as brit are threatening someone to be punished and erradicated in his own homeland ....
SharpenedScalpel 1 month ago
@SharpenedScalpel Nothing to do with me, I was born more than 100 years later so I did not have anything to do with these people, except happen to be born in the same country a century later. As for the british actions at the time, I agree, they were wrong, but then at the time people had different values. The Zulus did exactly the same thing to rival tribes which is why they became so powerful. Regardless of race, the strong will often exploit the weak. Sad but true.
THthefirst 1 month ago
@THthefirst It was also not regarding you directly lol mate. I try to imply how the situation looked like.
SharpenedScalpel 1 month ago
After seeing the movie it did remind me of the little big horn and custer , the brittish assumed that the zulu warriors could be defeated since they had guns and cannons just like custer , they did not think that overwhelming numbers would be there downfall
CB750k5 8 months ago
@CB750k5 It is interesting to compare Custer and Chelmsford. Chelmsford was an aristocrat, while Custer was the son of a blacksmith. Chelmsford was slow, plodding and cautious, Custer mercurial. But both made the same mistake by splitting their command without proper recon of the enemy's position.
ImperialistRunningDo 8 months ago
@ImperialistRunningDo Yes both men at the time thought they would be the big winners of the battle , there thoughts of glory overshadow there common sense
CB750k5 8 months ago
Isandlwana was to the British empire what the Little Big Horn was to the U.S. A shock, the revenge of which would be terrible. Not shown in the movie was the fact I believe that at the height of the battle a almost total eclipse of the sun occurred. \so for 15 minutes this was almost a night battle.
MegaWolfgang 9 months ago
THE BRITTISH GOT FUCKED UP!!
reflex1reflex1 9 months ago
great film thanks for posting
DeeandraRose 9 months ago
Scond only to Zulu, As the scariest movie I've ever seen.
62858rabbit 11 months ago
@62858rabbit don't worry - the good guys won in the end :)
blueray1969 9 months ago
A good first-hand account of the battle can be found in the book "In Zululand with the British, throughout the War of 1879" By Charles L. Norris-Newman ("Noggs" in the film).
ImperialistRunningDo 1 year ago