@TheDorkofYork These aren't Canadians, they are ANZACs: Australian, New Zealand Army Corps. Also, the middle eastern front was not the same kind of static warfare faced on the western front. Here, horse were actually useful.
@Ofthehouseofbeards The Italians beat the Turks in Libya three years before the war started and you got massacred at Gallipoli. You're worse than the Italians man, the Italians.
@Joeynator99 OTT. Relax. Your language does you no credit nor Australia and Australians. Australia saw itself in those days as part of the British Empire. It's nearly 100 years ago. HengistR is quite right, with one minor excpetion - there was a big slash of Irish running through them - not sure they saw themselves as 'British'. But either way it all worked and the ANZAC Corps was the only all-volunteer Army throughout WW1.
@Larrikins54 Thank you, sir. You are quite correct about the Irish population, who may have weighed up their loyalties. However, something like 140,000 Irishmen volunteered for the British Army during the War, and about 350,000 served in total, so some were clearly prepared to let bygones be bygones. For the reasons you allude to, there was no conscription in Ireland during the War. Naturally, I do not judge all Australians by Mr. joeynator99. Regards.
They were fucking australian and new zealander anzac's your filthy rat! They died beside and for the sake of those british fucking cunt's. We should never have fought there. FUCK THE BIT'S, NEVER AGAIN!!
@joeynator99 Hello, sir. Nice of you to share your views. As a matter of interest, about 20% of ANZAC were British-born. 98% of Australians were of British descent; some had only just arrived in Oz. No-one forced them to go - ANZAC was all volunteers. I notice that you say "we." Did you take part in the battle? Perhaps you should have pointed out the folly of their ways at the time. Brush up on your history and punctuation, and get back to me. Who said Australians are uncouth?
@joeynator99 anzac men who considered them selves as british empire troops who volunteered to fight for the empire and the mother country Great Brittain god bless the sons of the empire!!!
@joeynator99 like in Vietnam, the Second World War, Japan, Iraq, Afgan War, Korea and others to mention you two faced tosser..... slagging of the British got anything else better to do... so your a true aussie are you, an abo.....
@joeynator99 Your just one more gob shite know nothing that does all his fighting on Call of Duty 4 ha-ha. Thank God the Anzac’s of 1914/18 & 1939/45 had the guts to do more than you. Reading your post I'm sure you’re little more than a semi literate halfwit.
With regard to a number of comments. The Australian forces were part of the British Empire Forces but were a distinct national army. Their divisions served as part of Corps and Armies under British higher command, An American unit served in the Australian Corps under the Australian General Monashat the tactically brilliant victory at the Battle of Hamel on July 4 1918. (Coordinated use of tanks aircaft and infantry later termed Blitzkrieg.) This did not make them any less American troops.
@HenryvKeiper the origin of Meinertzhagen: Daniel Meinertzhagen (1697-1765), German businessman, senator of Bremen, Daniel Meinertzhagen (1733-1807), German businessman, senator of Bremen, Daniel Meinertzhagen (1801-1869), British banker of German origin, Richard Meinertzhagen (1878-1967), British officer and ornithologist. There is no Dutch in it
The heart of the battle of Beersheba had little other than command positions for British forces. The primary loss of life and the primary risk was undertaken by the Australian 4th light horse division. The decision for the charge was made due to the fact that under normal circumstances the light horse would normally ride into position, dismount and then fight on foot. The charge served it's purpose and was far more a success than British command had expected. Thus was born the legend.
First of all it would depend on where the regiment was recruited - the 4th Australian Light Horse Brigade comprised the following regiments 4th (Victoria), 11th (Queensland) and 12th (New South Wales). Most of the troops recruited from rural areas were "diggers" and guys like these would have ended up in the Light Horse. Three of my Aussie great grand-uncles fought in WWI (from an urban area) and were 2nd generation Anglo-Irish - fought in France as infantry. Also Allenby was a good general.
I love the way Aussie films make the Brits look stupid. Fucking Aussies, these guys were brave but the sooner we ditch modern day Australia the better !!!!
@MrCagivaman How does this make the British look stupid? Two British characters - Allenby and Meinhertzhagen - are portrayed as being very intelligent. Meinhertzhagen is the one who comes up with the ploy to make the Germans think the attack on Beersheba is a feint.
@HenryvKeiper that is not right. Meinertzhagen's surname derives from the town Meinerzhagen in Germany, the home of an ancestor. He is the descendant of the businessman and senator Daniel Meinertzhagen (1697-1765), whose grandfather in 1680 had emigrated from Cologne, and Anna Harms born out of the house of a merchant family of Anton Harms.
@MrCagivaman Another thing most modern thinking maintains is that these men were tough outback "digger" types, which is largely a myth as most recruits at this time, and during the Boer War were mainly 1st and 2nd generation British colonialists.
@MrCagivaman The Brits weren't exactly commended for their "intelligent" information and plans in the first world war. They sent their men to the wrong locations on more than one occasion and got them massacred and their officers sat back and drank tea while they're soldiers were being shot at miles off while drinking water with mud in it. The british troops were very good but I can't say the same for most of their officers, still there were a few bad Australian officers too.
@MrCagivaman It's done for a number of reasons, mostly resentment over things like Gallipoli, The Nek in particular, and the general incompetence of the British command staff during the first few years of the war. It wasn't until later in the war when the bad generals were weeded out and the good ones started to actually co-ordinate the creeping artillery barrage that the British reputation for incompetence became undeserving.
Yes its true that those Australian soldiers in WW1 were very tough decent men mostly from the BUSH/rural areas of Australia. Exellent horseman too! They so loved their horses better than their best friends in a way! This film Starring John Blake who only passed away early this morning aged 52 died as a result of brain damage caused as long term results from a motor car accident after his last appearence in this film back in 1986! He was a top actor cut down too early! R.I.P. JOHN BLAKE 30th May
@roseanne74 No no, they do that will almost every movie. If it is over a certain time frame, they have to break it into 2, or else it will cut in to important programs such as the news or others.
Four of the actors in this film- Bill Kerr, Jon Blake, Tony Bonner and Shane Briant, also starred in the mini-series Anzacs made the previous year (1985).
@happygamestvfun1 i expect you would think ww1 sucks, considering you did bugger all to help, if i fought someone untill we were both absolutly knackered and on the floor with no fight left in us, and you came along and kicked him in the ass, does that mean you beat him, i think not. no contribution from you so shut it.
@Rikitocker During the Great War all Commonwealth troops were considered British troops as they were part of the British Empire. So technically the Australian Lighthorse were British troops, they just came from Australia.
@Rikitocker The Australian formations (with some ANZAC amalagamated forces also) in this battle are British Forces. At this time the distinction was minor in terms of larger operational realities of the Great War. The Australians were part of the British Forces in WW1 and as such the description is correct.
@Rikitocker This was an attack by British forces. There were Brits involved, and Brits in command. The Lighthorsemen don't get involved until the second part.
@HenryvKeiper Only Aussie light horse clould have charged at flank speed. precise timing by chauvel got the aussies under the turk guns quick and the turks where underestimating the lighthorse speed
@mrsgritoli1 The operation was masterminded by General E. Allenby and it was him and the British Staff who formulated the plan and only called in the Division commanders after the plan had been designed. It is crucial to remember that this battle was one of the largest battle in the theatre with 6 divisions (2 cavalry(UK, NZ, AUS), 3 infantry (UK based) and 1 understrength UK/Indian division) and was not staffed entirely by Australians. Also its a frontal charge not a flank charge.
@fp470 I said flank speed, not flank charge. I also did not undermine the efforts of other empire forces.This was a great moment in the middle east campaign and i was simply being proud of our troops and horses.
@HenryvKeiper Yes, there were Brits involved, but the part everyone remembers and loves is the actual charge of the 4th Light Horse Brigade -- and that was an all-Australian affair. Fact.
Thank God for the great General Harry Chauvel for his plan to capture Beersheba which stool for 200 thousand years unable to be taken. To think the AIF is classed as army reserve, go the chockos
@hodaka1000 The AIF in WW1 were against the idea of fighting alongside conscripts. When the soldiers were allowed to vote in the two referendums held to decide whether to introduce conscription in Australia during WW1, the majority voted 'NO' on both occasions. For two reasons, they did not want to fight alongside reluctant conscripts and they didn't want young men back home to be forced to experience what they themselves were going through.
I put "Australia" and "New Zealand" in the keywords, and you can find Australian in the definition of the other videos, which are more relevant because they focus on the Australians specifically.
@chipburgler Technically the Australian forces were designated as British forces at the time. They were titled Australian Light Horse to reinforce the national character of the unit so they would standout from other British Cavarly. Also Britain did have a number of LightHorse units before the turn of the century, but as you point out none in WW1.
@chipburgler Well the Australian LIght Horse was created by a former British solider, Lt. Gen Hutton. He came to Australia and designed the LIght Horse from already existing units of cavarly and mounted infantry to form 'mounted rifles.' The British Light Horse units ranged from professional full time units, to the Yeomanry and many colonial garrison corps. British military history is very rich and the most enjoyable to read in the world.
Australia and New Zealand =Anzacs for one. Also this was an all Australian Charge the New Zealand Mounted Rifles were engaged further West. Also it was British operation
And for all the nej says out there, this is fucking simple.. every single one of them considered themselves Australian.. this notion that Aussie sldiers signed up for the glory of Empire is bullshit. They flew OUR flag, not the Jack, and died under it. They wound up so resnetful of British officers (not troops) that it was one of the unspoken key factors in Monash's promotion to commnad of the AIF.
Well I am sure to you its no big thing.. but I despise these smarmy accademic types who quote historical technicalities. the men who fought and died under the ANZAC BANNER, and Australian flag,well a good many, I can provide testimonies, hated the term AIF, considered themselves ANZACS fighting for Australia NOT British forces, they did thei own thing when it came down to it, and died to be remembered as Australian Soliders, NOT British Forces. The theft of their memories and acts must stop
1. Australian identity was fromed during the war, many held mixed identies whiuch dont suvive to the present day. All considered themesleves British in a general sense but Australian in a particular sense. Our motto during the White Australia policy was 'More British than the British'
2. the Australian flag wasnt flown in WW1, infact it wasnt recognised by parliament till 1954.
3. Also in the middle east the brit/Aus rivallry was not true and there was close assocaition.
Not all considered themselves British in a Genral sense.. read some biographies.
In 1908 the Blue Ensign replaced the Union Flag at all military establishments. From 1911 it was the saluting flag of the Australian army at all reviews and ceremonial parades. *Wikipedia*..
..people also took their own flags... because they sooo loved the Union Jack and considered themselves Brits.. how could I miss it.
There was rivalry, and disrespect, one for troops, the other officers ALSO assoc.
It all depended.. again, read some accounts, watch some interviews... the attitude was present decades before the Great War, even before Australia.. in the attitudes and interactions of the Malitia of Each Colony fighting in the Boer War.
How can you make such sweepinng statements... fact is, even if my intial post wasnt true of ALL diggers.. even being true of just a platoon would be enough to warrant you ceasation in reffering to them as 'British Troops'
@fp470 ...oh dear..how far the Brittish stronghold has fallen to rely upon you to dictate to the peasants of Australia where we stand in the Brittish colony. "White Australia" indeed! "Australian identity was FORMED during the war" indeed! For one so limited in grammar and clearly lacking in judgment, I would say your comments are nothing more than an attempt at attention. I am an Aboriginal Australian.
Actually it was 1946 that all Australians, in fact every permanent resident in Australia, became Autralian citizens. The Australia Act of 1986 removed the last vestages of Commonwealth dominion, with removal of the process of appeal to the Privy Council and such. I have my fathers birth doccuments to prove anyone who sayd otherwise wrong, born in Australia in 1918, as a Birtish citizen, but dies an Australian one. His elder brothers and his cousins fought in this war, one in this battle.
fp470 - 1st .. please learn how to SPELL the Eng. Language correctly .. if ever you hope to eventually, when you are more mature, realise your own self-initiated aspirations to genuine, credible 'scholarship'. 2nd, same goes for English GRAMMAR !! 3rd .. for gods sake, stop referring to Aussie soldiers as 'British' soldiers. We never have been 'British' , not since 1901. Are you some kind of Pommie, here in Oz on some kind of exchange program ?? You sure don't write like a dinkum Aussie, son.
Maybe he might look up in a dictionary the meaning of the adjective British: related to person or thing or costume living,made or from the British isles.
You hardly say that anything or anyone from Australia has the right to be considered british.
We might share the language and some part of common culture ,but so do the Americans and the Canadians ,and i doubt any American or any Canadian can be somehow considered british.
Cultural dynamics and identity are far to complicated for a dictionary definition. Nationalism, identiry and ethnicity are a complex tapestry of history. It would be prudent for you to consider that before making such comments about relying on dictionary definitions. Consult a good book on nationalism or a history of Australian Identiry by Cultural historians.
Also I would commend the works of Craig Wilcox who writes about the period identity either side of Federation.
at the end of the day they wore Australian uniforms and were paid by the Australian Government. They were Australian, and no one can attempt to lay claim to them.
No they are still british troops, they are Australian but htey are British troops fighitng in a British Army, of which the Austrlaians are a small part, under British command.
The Australian army was fully integrated into the British, they had no support or internal services for themselves.
Not saying they are English and this is an English defeat.
Australians were a Britsih dominion until the 1931 constitional adjustment and as such couldnt truly raise thier own army indendant of Britain.
@moakley I wonder, if Aussies were deafeated during the day, if englishman would said 'it was because of the Aussies" and while it was victory, it was "British victory". as Death said in "Monthy Python's meaning of life" 'Englishman you're all so fucking pompous...'
(con't)...British troops. Australian was a mostly independant country at the time, but it wasnt till the constituitional adjusment in 1931 could we actually impose ourselves in the international community.e.g. At the outbreak of ww1 Australia didnt have a foreign office to engage in our own diplomacy.
Australians still are aptly labelled British troops for the following reasons. Firstly the AIF were formed for the uses of the Britsh Command and reconised themselves as that. Secondly as a Dominion the possesive for any such troops 'can' be British where as colonial troops are always termed British. Furthermore it would be incorrect to call them British soldiers which is not the assertion many make, they have different connotations. The Australian official history deems Aussie soldiers to be ..
lol mahstah you're talking bollocks there kid. dont rely on information wikipedia mate. look up other sources on australia and make sure they are accurate.
"Britishness" or "British" is simply a term used to refer to all people living within the overall political unit: the British Empire.
This included: Scots, Irish, Welsh, English, Africans, Indians, Arabs, Asians, Canadians, and yes Australians.
Ethnically different, but all "British". "Layered" identity, as it were.
While in modern times this concept has faded (people in Scotland, while part of the UK, feel more "Scottish" than "British") it was alive and well during the first World War.
As such, at the time of the battle of Beersheba, Australia was merely a "territory" or "dominion" of the overall British Empire. Therefore the people living there were considered to be "British" first and "Australian" second.
Perhaps much in the same way as people living in Wales are "British" first and not "Welsh", as it is part of the United Kingdom.
Australia did not gain any sort of meaningful autonomous status until the Balfour Declaration of 1926, and was not recognized as independent until the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Even so, Australia, at their own request, remained subject to the government in London, and remained, in theory, self-governing colonies.
Australia did not become totally independent and a nation in its own right until the Australia Act of 1986.
All the 1901 Federation of Australia did was form the 6 separate colonies of New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia into one single political unit: Australia.
This process did nothing to increase autonomous power or independence of Australia as a nation in its own right.
What people need to understand is that Indian, Australian, Irish, Canadian, and African soldiers were all "British Troops". This is because they were all from the British Empire.
Just "Texan" soldiers are still "American" troops.
Australia is a COUNTRY with a membership in the COMMONWEALTH of Nations — formerly the "British Commonwealth"
New South Wales is a STATE of AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIA is NOT a state of Britain
therefore an Australian soldier is not a british soldier.
if you wish to continue your arguements, note well that american forces in WW1 were under british command (techincally under direct Australian command). Yet they are not classes as british soldiers.
First off, the Commonwealth of Nations was established in 1931, several decades after World War I.
At the time of the Battle of Beersheba, Australia was merely a "Dominion" of the British Empire, and had very limited autonomous power. For instance, when the Empire declared war on Germany, Australia AUTOMATICALLY entered into the war. The Dominions did not gain any practical autonomy until the Balfour Declaration of 1926.
Australia and other Dominion armies were raised with for use by British HQ and army.
Dominion countries have certain constitiutional and heritage associations that can validly see transfer of power from one army to serve under another's.
Also the term used was often forces and troops rather than soldier. You could be a British troop or British forces but an Indian, NewZealand or Australian soldier- its more a collective term denoting command.
Also the Australin Officail History makes this usage of troop, forces and soldier language as well.
As to your point about US forces- its not just about command but integration and authority. Just because in a few battles (the US got uppidy about British control of their troops) Britain commands SOME US forces doesnt make them British troops because they werent formed as British troops in mind.
Also Britain as Australia's cause hasthe possessive authority to label Aust troops British
@ThaMahstah After 1916 though Aussie troops had a separate command which hasn't changed to this day - Aussie troops in Afghanistan are not still "British" troops.
@craazyman85 The idea of a proper "Commonwealth" didn't emerge until AFTER the First World War. At the time of this battle, it was still very much an EMPIRE.
@ThaMahstah Actually the British Commonwealth of Nations came into being in 1926 through the Balfour Declaration, the Statute of Westminster was formalised in 1931 (but it wasn't ratified by Newfoundland, although Australia and NZ did), and the London Declaration was in 1949, when the word "British" was dropped and it became just the "Commonwealth of Nations"
@MsSloppyseconds Australia was at one point an entirely British country founded and settled mostly by British and Irish colonists and convicts. Australia's culture, language, sports, cuisine and heritage used to be entirely British and Irish, these roots are the bedrock of Australia society although they are becoming increasingly less emphasized and often looked down upon more recent and less grateful generations. It wasn't long ago we had a Prime Minister claim to be British to the bootstraps.
Well its really a bad idea. Had they known they were making a mounted attack they would have taken necessary anti cavarly precaustions. Namley Shell them not as they apporached but shell a fixed position and roll the fire toward their own lines and cease fire a safe distance from their own lines. Also they would have formed up machine gun positions in advance. It worked because it was a HUGE surprise.
Well thats what the Austtralian LIght Horse and New Zealand Mounted Rifles were trained and expected to do. You send in cavarly first to attack the enemy' flank and rear.
Beersheba was too far for the British infarnty to walk, its across teh middle of a desert after all
Well they wer used inmany cavarly roles and eventually became cavalry officially in 1918 with issue of swords and sword drill.
Also whilst the are mounted infantry in some senses many aspects of them were cavarly like.
Finally you must keep in mind that by the late 1800s the Napoleonic conception of cavarly, dragoons and mounted infantry had been transformed. British cavarly were expected to conduct both mounted and dismounted by the 1890s.
HenryvKeiper, stop trying to give the brits credit of this Great aussie victory. The brits didnt know shit about how to command Australian troops, especially the light horse, (the normal Brit strategy for the light horse was; charge them into the range of the enemies guns then get them to dismount, were they drunk on tea or something!) in the battle of Beersheba the Australian troops were commanded by Australian officers and no brits, so this is no way a British victory.
The supreme commander during the operation was Allenby. He was British. The main control was British. QED - British victory. The Australians deserve credit, yes, but I'm not "trying to give the brits credit," just stating facts. If you look at my dialogue with people with the other videos I've glorified the ANZACs and even said part of my inspiration for uploading all these scenes was ANZAC Day - you know, to glorify the Aussies and NZ'ers. So please, I'm not in the mood for conspiracy theories.
In America, we weren't stupid enough to use horses in the Great War, unlike the Canucks in this movie...
TheDorkofYork 4 days ago
@TheDorkofYork These aren't Canadians, they are ANZACs: Australian, New Zealand Army Corps. Also, the middle eastern front was not the same kind of static warfare faced on the western front. Here, horse were actually useful.
Ofthehouseofbeards 3 days ago
@TheDorkofYork And I'd wager the ANZACs were the second toughest units on the battlefield.
Ofthehouseofbeards 3 days ago
@Ofthehouseofbeards Right behind the Americans. And everyone else. And the Italians.
TheDorkofYork 2 days ago
@TheDorkofYork That's one deluded man's incorrect and unsubstantiated opinion.
Ofthehouseofbeards 2 days ago
@Ofthehouseofbeards The Italians beat the Turks in Libya three years before the war started and you got massacred at Gallipoli. You're worse than the Italians man, the Italians.
TheDorkofYork 2 days ago
@TheDorkofYork Still just one deluded man's incorrectand unsubstantiated opinion.
Ofthehouseofbeards 2 days ago
I would like to see the complete The Lighthorsemen ovie. Can-you give-me a playlist for this movie?
pearluck01251 1 week ago in playlist The Lighthorsemen
@Joeynator99 OTT. Relax. Your language does you no credit nor Australia and Australians. Australia saw itself in those days as part of the British Empire. It's nearly 100 years ago. HengistR is quite right, with one minor excpetion - there was a big slash of Irish running through them - not sure they saw themselves as 'British'. But either way it all worked and the ANZAC Corps was the only all-volunteer Army throughout WW1.
Larrikins54 4 weeks ago
@Larrikins54 Thank you, sir. You are quite correct about the Irish population, who may have weighed up their loyalties. However, something like 140,000 Irishmen volunteered for the British Army during the War, and about 350,000 served in total, so some were clearly prepared to let bygones be bygones. For the reasons you allude to, there was no conscription in Ireland during the War. Naturally, I do not judge all Australians by Mr. joeynator99. Regards.
HengistR 4 weeks ago
They were fucking australian and new zealander anzac's your filthy rat! They died beside and for the sake of those british fucking cunt's. We should never have fought there. FUCK THE BIT'S, NEVER AGAIN!!
joeynator99 1 month ago
@joeynator99 Hey hey hey - I will NOT have you talk about the Bits that way. You know how awesome Bits are? Especially the Li'l Bits.
HenryvKeiper 1 month ago 6
@HenryvKeiper yep the bits suck hahahahahahahahaha
BS1965able 2 weeks ago
@joeynator99 Hello, sir. Nice of you to share your views. As a matter of interest, about 20% of ANZAC were British-born. 98% of Australians were of British descent; some had only just arrived in Oz. No-one forced them to go - ANZAC was all volunteers. I notice that you say "we." Did you take part in the battle? Perhaps you should have pointed out the folly of their ways at the time. Brush up on your history and punctuation, and get back to me. Who said Australians are uncouth?
HengistR 1 month ago
@joeynator99 anzac men who considered them selves as british empire troops who volunteered to fight for the empire and the mother country Great Brittain god bless the sons of the empire!!!
bedfoxx1 4 weeks ago
@joeynator99 like in Vietnam, the Second World War, Japan, Iraq, Afgan War, Korea and others to mention you two faced tosser..... slagging of the British got anything else better to do... so your a true aussie are you, an abo.....
fredinaranjo 3 weeks ago
@joeynator99 Your just one more gob shite know nothing that does all his fighting on Call of Duty 4 ha-ha. Thank God the Anzac’s of 1914/18 & 1939/45 had the guts to do more than you. Reading your post I'm sure you’re little more than a semi literate halfwit.
Must try harder.
1948bazza 1 week ago
"Do you see any alternative?"
"Well no sir, but-"
"ALRIGHT, LET'S DO IT THEN!!! :D"
teencomment 1 month ago
I'm fascinated by the music - it's excellent.
ftorresgamez 1 month ago
best blokes watching your back in any fight ! god bless them all.
bigrider2806 1 month ago
With regard to a number of comments. The Australian forces were part of the British Empire Forces but were a distinct national army. Their divisions served as part of Corps and Armies under British higher command, An American unit served in the Australian Corps under the Australian General Monashat the tactically brilliant victory at the Battle of Hamel on July 4 1918. (Coordinated use of tanks aircaft and infantry later termed Blitzkrieg.) This did not make them any less American troops.
pshehan1 1 month ago
They were Aussies not British....
pyrofella 2 months ago 6
@pyrofella This has been discussed ad nauseum. Lurk moar.
HenryvKeiper 2 months ago
Yes a very good film. But where is Bersheeba located ?
nightravenonline 2 months ago
@nightravenonline Today it would be in the middle of southern Israel.
HenryvKeiper 2 months ago
Great film, has helped my history essay a lot.
chaz1453 3 months ago
I love that bit with Tas giving his horse his remaining water
Lilyjaye73 3 months ago
@Lilyjaye73 I'm sure the horse loved it too :)
HenryvKeiper 2 months ago
My favorite part of the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. Thanks for posting!
CPLWeeks 3 months ago
@HenryvKeiper the origin of Meinertzhagen: Daniel Meinertzhagen (1697-1765), German businessman, senator of Bremen, Daniel Meinertzhagen (1733-1807), German businessman, senator of Bremen, Daniel Meinertzhagen (1801-1869), British banker of German origin, Richard Meinertzhagen (1878-1967), British officer and ornithologist. There is no Dutch in it
ad220588 3 months ago
Oh my god it's Crocodile Dundee! Oh my god it's Crocodile Dundee again! Oh my god another Crocodile Dundee! Wow he must have a lot of brothers.
Armydude991 4 months ago
The heart of the battle of Beersheba had little other than command positions for British forces. The primary loss of life and the primary risk was undertaken by the Australian 4th light horse division. The decision for the charge was made due to the fact that under normal circumstances the light horse would normally ride into position, dismount and then fight on foot. The charge served it's purpose and was far more a success than British command had expected. Thus was born the legend.
Ozjourneyman 6 months ago
First of all it would depend on where the regiment was recruited - the 4th Australian Light Horse Brigade comprised the following regiments 4th (Victoria), 11th (Queensland) and 12th (New South Wales). Most of the troops recruited from rural areas were "diggers" and guys like these would have ended up in the Light Horse. Three of my Aussie great grand-uncles fought in WWI (from an urban area) and were 2nd generation Anglo-Irish - fought in France as infantry. Also Allenby was a good general.
MJB33bravo 7 months ago
I love the way Aussie films make the Brits look stupid. Fucking Aussies, these guys were brave but the sooner we ditch modern day Australia the better !!!!
MrCagivaman 7 months ago
@MrCagivaman How does this make the British look stupid? Two British characters - Allenby and Meinhertzhagen - are portrayed as being very intelligent. Meinhertzhagen is the one who comes up with the ploy to make the Germans think the attack on Beersheba is a feint.
HenryvKeiper 7 months ago 4
@HenryvKeiper It's purely a try to give the movie lots more suspence & actions.
Madmachine73 4 months ago
@Madmachine73 What was?
HenryvKeiper 4 months ago
@HenryvKeiper Make them look stupid & inferiror but yet they've won.
Madmachine73 4 months ago
@Madmachine73 I'm not aware of the film making them look that way, though.
HenryvKeiper 4 months ago
@HenryvKeiper Who would have thought that a British man of German origin is role model for James Bond.
Meinertzhagen was still a crook
ad220588 3 months ago
@ad220588 Meinertzhagen is actually Dutch, not German. Also, how was he a crook?
HenryvKeiper 3 months ago
@HenryvKeiper that is not right. Meinertzhagen's surname derives from the town Meinerzhagen in Germany, the home of an ancestor. He is the descendant of the businessman and senator Daniel Meinertzhagen (1697-1765), whose grandfather in 1680 had emigrated from Cologne, and Anna Harms born out of the house of a merchant family of Anton Harms.
ad220588 3 months ago
@ad220588 Ah, my mistake. I just read he made up where the name comes from to avoid Germanophobia during World War I.
HenryvKeiper 3 months ago
@MrCagivaman Another thing most modern thinking maintains is that these men were tough outback "digger" types, which is largely a myth as most recruits at this time, and during the Boer War were mainly 1st and 2nd generation British colonialists.
BradBrassman 7 months ago
@MrCagivaman The Brits weren't exactly commended for their "intelligent" information and plans in the first world war. They sent their men to the wrong locations on more than one occasion and got them massacred and their officers sat back and drank tea while they're soldiers were being shot at miles off while drinking water with mud in it. The british troops were very good but I can't say the same for most of their officers, still there were a few bad Australian officers too.
TheSovietSamurai 4 months ago
@MrCagivaman It's done for a number of reasons, mostly resentment over things like Gallipoli, The Nek in particular, and the general incompetence of the British command staff during the first few years of the war. It wasn't until later in the war when the bad generals were weeded out and the good ones started to actually co-ordinate the creeping artillery barrage that the British reputation for incompetence became undeserving.
Cadeyrnable 4 months ago
Great Australian cast...has immortalised Jon Blake RIP
donellatube 9 months ago
R.I.P John Blake...A brilliant artist.
thunderwithrain 9 months ago
Yes its true that those Australian soldiers in WW1 were very tough decent men mostly from the BUSH/rural areas of Australia. Exellent horseman too! They so loved their horses better than their best friends in a way! This film Starring John Blake who only passed away early this morning aged 52 died as a result of brain damage caused as long term results from a motor car accident after his last appearence in this film back in 1986! He was a top actor cut down too early! R.I.P. JOHN BLAKE 30th May
aspiaino 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Aussies and Canucks are the master race!
bougabouga 9 months ago
This mini series always makes me so proud, because one of my great uncles (Dad's uncle) was actually THERE at the Battle of Beersheba.
roseanne74 10 months ago
@roseanne74 Is not a mini-series, its an entire movie.
LordWellington15 9 months ago
Comment removed
roseanne74 9 months ago
@LordWellington15 I beg to differ. When this was first screened on TV, it was screened over two nights, which constitutes a mini series
roseanne74 9 months ago
@roseanne74 No no, they do that will almost every movie. If it is over a certain time frame, they have to break it into 2, or else it will cut in to important programs such as the news or others.
LordWellington15 9 months ago
Brings a tear to my eye and a lump in my throat every time! So proud of my fellow Australians and just in awe of their courage!
Guster1973 10 months ago
Comment removed
roseanne74 10 months ago
Four of the actors in this film- Bill Kerr, Jon Blake, Tony Bonner and Shane Briant, also starred in the mini-series Anzacs made the previous year (1985).
hill9868 1 year ago
Anyone should be able to tell that they are Australian by their accents and the fact that they are some of the toughest SOBs alive
Goatoftheforest 1 year ago 17
@Goatoftheforest Yup.
HenryvKeiper 1 year ago
@HenryvKeiper After New Zealanders, of course.
verfugbarkite 5 months ago
@Goatoftheforest Nice nationalism, douchebag
jurassicturd3 8 months ago
@Goatoftheforest You can tell they are aussies by their hats.
LittleFrenchy72 4 months ago
@Goatoftheforest the accente AND the slouch hat
94souris94 1 month ago
god that description makes me angry
bola1212 1 year ago
@bola1212 Haw haw haw *pours salt, rubs his hand over the wound*
HenryvKeiper 1 year ago
@Rikitocker Here Here!!!!!!
mrsgritoli1 1 year ago
you have no idea, neither does your dad
zefer14 1 year ago
@arsenalforever31
they were turks, dumbass, you know, from turkey, its a country by the way, not just a bird.
silu81 1 year ago
WW1 sucks and is a picnic compared to ww2 ww3 also sucks
happygamestvfun1 1 year ago
@happygamestvfun1 i expect you would think ww1 sucks, considering you did bugger all to help, if i fought someone untill we were both absolutly knackered and on the floor with no fight left in us, and you came along and kicked him in the ass, does that mean you beat him, i think not. no contribution from you so shut it.
silu81 1 year ago
@happygamestvfun1 Tell that to the thousands of men and women who died on the western front. You are a complete FLOG
mrsgritoli1 1 year ago
@Rikitocker During the Great War all Commonwealth troops were considered British troops as they were part of the British Empire. So technically the Australian Lighthorse were British troops, they just came from Australia.
HMservant 1 year ago
@Rikitocker The Australian formations (with some ANZAC amalagamated forces also) in this battle are British Forces. At this time the distinction was minor in terms of larger operational realities of the Great War. The Australians were part of the British Forces in WW1 and as such the description is correct.
fp470 1 year ago
@Rikitocker This was an attack by British forces. There were Brits involved, and Brits in command. The Lighthorsemen don't get involved until the second part.
HenryvKeiper 1 year ago 4
@HenryvKeiper So you're saying this is just movie hype and no shred of evidence?
MrBarramundi 1 year ago
@MrBarramundi Wha?
HenryvKeiper 1 year ago
@HenryvKeiper Only Aussie light horse clould have charged at flank speed. precise timing by chauvel got the aussies under the turk guns quick and the turks where underestimating the lighthorse speed
mrsgritoli1 1 year ago
@mrsgritoli1 The operation was masterminded by General E. Allenby and it was him and the British Staff who formulated the plan and only called in the Division commanders after the plan had been designed. It is crucial to remember that this battle was one of the largest battle in the theatre with 6 divisions (2 cavalry(UK, NZ, AUS), 3 infantry (UK based) and 1 understrength UK/Indian division) and was not staffed entirely by Australians. Also its a frontal charge not a flank charge.
fp470 1 year ago
@fp470 I said flank speed, not flank charge. I also did not undermine the efforts of other empire forces.This was a great moment in the middle east campaign and i was simply being proud of our troops and horses.
mrsgritoli1 1 year ago
@HenryvKeiper Yes, there were Brits involved, but the part everyone remembers and loves is the actual charge of the 4th Light Horse Brigade -- and that was an all-Australian affair. Fact.
lofilife 1 year ago
@lofilife Yes, the charge was Australian, the main force was British. I said nothing more than that.
HenryvKeiper 1 year ago
Thank God for the great General Harry Chauvel for his plan to capture Beersheba which stool for 200 thousand years unable to be taken. To think the AIF is classed as army reserve, go the chockos
zefer14 1 year ago
@zefer14
Your wrong saying the AIF were "chockos".
When I was a kid I asked my late father who was WW2 AIF what was a chocko?
He replied, "They weren't real soldiers, they were little chocolate soldiers."
The chockos were the home guard the milltia and I believe they were conscripts and some units fought well in New Guinea in WW2.
The WW1AIF were real front line soldiers and all volunteers.
hodaka1000 1 year ago
@hodaka1000 The AIF in WW1 were against the idea of fighting alongside conscripts. When the soldiers were allowed to vote in the two referendums held to decide whether to introduce conscription in Australia during WW1, the majority voted 'NO' on both occasions. For two reasons, they did not want to fight alongside reluctant conscripts and they didn't want young men back home to be forced to experience what they themselves were going through.
hill9868 1 year ago
Australian 4th & 12th Light Horse Regiments of the 4th Light Horse Brigade- Australian Mounted Division, capture Beersheba- 31st October 1917.
wattlebough 2 years ago
love how the person puts british in the description but nothing about the anzacs ]:(
minablock 2 years ago
I put "Australia" and "New Zealand" in the keywords, and you can find Australian in the definition of the other videos, which are more relevant because they focus on the Australians specifically.
HenryvKeiper 2 years ago
ok i understand nows
(happy face)
:D
minablock 2 years ago
'Lighthorsemen' is pretty specifically Australian, concidering there were no british lighthorse brigades.
chipburgler 1 year ago
@chipburgler Of course.
HenryvKeiper 1 year ago
@HenryvKeiper Just like the Anzacs.
Renagade70 1 year ago
@chipburgler Technically the Australian forces were designated as British forces at the time. They were titled Australian Light Horse to reinforce the national character of the unit so they would standout from other British Cavarly. Also Britain did have a number of LightHorse units before the turn of the century, but as you point out none in WW1.
fp470 1 year ago
@fp470 Thats interesting, thanks. I had no idea that the British had LightHorse units just before the turn of the century.
chipburgler 1 year ago
@chipburgler Well the Australian LIght Horse was created by a former British solider, Lt. Gen Hutton. He came to Australia and designed the LIght Horse from already existing units of cavarly and mounted infantry to form 'mounted rifles.' The British Light Horse units ranged from professional full time units, to the Yeomanry and many colonial garrison corps. British military history is very rich and the most enjoyable to read in the world.
fp470 1 year ago
@chipburgler just as long as it wont turn out to be a american brigade because then ill have to puke
bartieboy93 1 year ago
Australia and New Zealand =Anzacs for one. Also this was an all Australian Charge the New Zealand Mounted Rifles were engaged further West. Also it was British operation
fp470 2 years ago
And for all the nej says out there, this is fucking simple.. every single one of them considered themselves Australian.. this notion that Aussie sldiers signed up for the glory of Empire is bullshit. They flew OUR flag, not the Jack, and died under it. They wound up so resnetful of British officers (not troops) that it was one of the unspoken key factors in Monash's promotion to commnad of the AIF.
Apis4 2 years ago
Finished?
PhilipineMan 2 years ago
Who is? this war? yeah, 1918.
Apis4 2 years ago
Are you finished commenting?
PhilipineMan 2 years ago
Well I am sure to you its no big thing.. but I despise these smarmy accademic types who quote historical technicalities. the men who fought and died under the ANZAC BANNER, and Australian flag,well a good many, I can provide testimonies, hated the term AIF, considered themselves ANZACS fighting for Australia NOT British forces, they did thei own thing when it came down to it, and died to be remembered as Australian Soliders, NOT British Forces. The theft of their memories and acts must stop
Apis4 2 years ago
A few points
1. Australian identity was fromed during the war, many held mixed identies whiuch dont suvive to the present day. All considered themesleves British in a general sense but Australian in a particular sense. Our motto during the White Australia policy was 'More British than the British'
2. the Australian flag wasnt flown in WW1, infact it wasnt recognised by parliament till 1954.
3. Also in the middle east the brit/Aus rivallry was not true and there was close assocaition.
fp470 2 years ago
Not all considered themselves British in a Genral sense.. read some biographies.
In 1908 the Blue Ensign replaced the Union Flag at all military establishments. From 1911 it was the saluting flag of the Australian army at all reviews and ceremonial parades. *Wikipedia*..
..people also took their own flags... because they sooo loved the Union Jack and considered themselves Brits.. how could I miss it.
There was rivalry, and disrespect, one for troops, the other officers ALSO assoc.
Apis4 2 years ago
It all depended.. again, read some accounts, watch some interviews... the attitude was present decades before the Great War, even before Australia.. in the attitudes and interactions of the Malitia of Each Colony fighting in the Boer War.
How can you make such sweepinng statements... fact is, even if my intial post wasnt true of ALL diggers.. even being true of just a platoon would be enough to warrant you ceasation in reffering to them as 'British Troops'
Apis4 2 years ago
@fp470 ...oh dear..how far the Brittish stronghold has fallen to rely upon you to dictate to the peasants of Australia where we stand in the Brittish colony. "White Australia" indeed! "Australian identity was FORMED during the war" indeed! For one so limited in grammar and clearly lacking in judgment, I would say your comments are nothing more than an attempt at attention. I am an Aboriginal Australian.
MrBarramundi 2 years ago
Actually it was 1946 that all Australians, in fact every permanent resident in Australia, became Autralian citizens. The Australia Act of 1986 removed the last vestages of Commonwealth dominion, with removal of the process of appeal to the Privy Council and such. I have my fathers birth doccuments to prove anyone who sayd otherwise wrong, born in Australia in 1918, as a Birtish citizen, but dies an Australian one. His elder brothers and his cousins fought in this war, one in this battle.
Apis4 2 years ago
fp470 - 1st .. please learn how to SPELL the Eng. Language correctly .. if ever you hope to eventually, when you are more mature, realise your own self-initiated aspirations to genuine, credible 'scholarship'. 2nd, same goes for English GRAMMAR !! 3rd .. for gods sake, stop referring to Aussie soldiers as 'British' soldiers. We never have been 'British' , not since 1901. Are you some kind of Pommie, here in Oz on some kind of exchange program ?? You sure don't write like a dinkum Aussie, son.
colindominy 2 years ago
Maybe he might look up in a dictionary the meaning of the adjective British: related to person or thing or costume living,made or from the British isles.
You hardly say that anything or anyone from Australia has the right to be considered british.
We might share the language and some part of common culture ,but so do the Americans and the Canadians ,and i doubt any American or any Canadian can be somehow considered british.
cymrubahaus78 2 years ago
Cultural dynamics and identity are far to complicated for a dictionary definition. Nationalism, identiry and ethnicity are a complex tapestry of history. It would be prudent for you to consider that before making such comments about relying on dictionary definitions. Consult a good book on nationalism or a history of Australian Identiry by Cultural historians.
Also I would commend the works of Craig Wilcox who writes about the period identity either side of Federation.
fp470 2 years ago
at the end of the day they wore Australian uniforms and were paid by the Australian Government. They were Australian, and no one can attempt to lay claim to them.
semtex84 2 years ago
No they are still british troops, they are Australian but htey are British troops fighitng in a British Army, of which the Austrlaians are a small part, under British command.
The Australian army was fully integrated into the British, they had no support or internal services for themselves.
Not saying they are English and this is an English defeat.
Australians were a Britsih dominion until the 1931 constitional adjustment and as such couldnt truly raise thier own army indendant of Britain.
fp470 2 years ago
im sorry mate but Australians fought under the Australian flag and Australian soldiers did not and would not salute to British officers
moakley 2 years ago
@moakley I wonder, if Aussies were deafeated during the day, if englishman would said 'it was because of the Aussies" and while it was victory, it was "British victory". as Death said in "Monthy Python's meaning of life" 'Englishman you're all so fucking pompous...'
tomenicus 2 years ago
British Troop =/= your from the UK.
Australian soliders are British troops, the words are NOT interchangabel and its a very important point not to miss.
fp470 2 years ago
(con't)...British troops. Australian was a mostly independant country at the time, but it wasnt till the constituitional adjusment in 1931 could we actually impose ourselves in the international community.e.g. At the outbreak of ww1 Australia didnt have a foreign office to engage in our own diplomacy.
fp470 2 years ago
Australians still are aptly labelled British troops for the following reasons. Firstly the AIF were formed for the uses of the Britsh Command and reconised themselves as that. Secondly as a Dominion the possesive for any such troops 'can' be British where as colonial troops are always termed British. Furthermore it would be incorrect to call them British soldiers which is not the assertion many make, they have different connotations. The Australian official history deems Aussie soldiers to be ..
fp470 2 years ago
lol mahstah you're talking bollocks there kid. dont rely on information wikipedia mate. look up other sources on australia and make sure they are accurate.
matt2house 2 years ago
Comment removed
ThaMahstah 2 years ago
Prove me wrong. =]
Go on. Go. Go find me a website that refutes what I've posted.
ThaMahstah 2 years ago
"Britishness" or "British" is simply a term used to refer to all people living within the overall political unit: the British Empire.
This included: Scots, Irish, Welsh, English, Africans, Indians, Arabs, Asians, Canadians, and yes Australians.
Ethnically different, but all "British". "Layered" identity, as it were.
While in modern times this concept has faded (people in Scotland, while part of the UK, feel more "Scottish" than "British") it was alive and well during the first World War.
ThaMahstah 2 years ago
As such, at the time of the battle of Beersheba, Australia was merely a "territory" or "dominion" of the overall British Empire. Therefore the people living there were considered to be "British" first and "Australian" second.
Perhaps much in the same way as people living in Wales are "British" first and not "Welsh", as it is part of the United Kingdom.
ThaMahstah 2 years ago
Australia did not gain any sort of meaningful autonomous status until the Balfour Declaration of 1926, and was not recognized as independent until the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Even so, Australia, at their own request, remained subject to the government in London, and remained, in theory, self-governing colonies.
Australia did not become totally independent and a nation in its own right until the Australia Act of 1986.
ThaMahstah 2 years ago
All the 1901 Federation of Australia did was form the 6 separate colonies of New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia into one single political unit: Australia.
This process did nothing to increase autonomous power or independence of Australia as a nation in its own right.
ThaMahstah 2 years ago
What people need to understand is that Indian, Australian, Irish, Canadian, and African soldiers were all "British Troops". This is because they were all from the British Empire.
Just "Texan" soldiers are still "American" troops.
Or "Saxon" soldiers are still "German" troops.
ThaMahstah 2 years ago 17
you are incorrect.
Texas is a STATE of the COUNTRY USA
Australia is a COUNTRY with a membership in the COMMONWEALTH of Nations — formerly the "British Commonwealth"
New South Wales is a STATE of AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIA is NOT a state of Britain
therefore an Australian soldier is not a british soldier.
if you wish to continue your arguements, note well that american forces in WW1 were under british command (techincally under direct Australian command). Yet they are not classes as british soldiers.
larkfeast 2 years ago
They are NOW.
First off, the Commonwealth of Nations was established in 1931, several decades after World War I.
At the time of the Battle of Beersheba, Australia was merely a "Dominion" of the British Empire, and had very limited autonomous power. For instance, when the Empire declared war on Germany, Australia AUTOMATICALLY entered into the war. The Dominions did not gain any practical autonomy until the Balfour Declaration of 1926.
They were "British" first, Australians after.
ThaMahstah 2 years ago
Therefore, my argument stands.
ThaMahstah 2 years ago
Bullshit 1901 federation!!!!! Australia first Britsih second.
ozepaul 2 years ago
Australia and other Dominion armies were raised with for use by British HQ and army.
Dominion countries have certain constitiutional and heritage associations that can validly see transfer of power from one army to serve under another's.
Also the term used was often forces and troops rather than soldier. You could be a British troop or British forces but an Indian, NewZealand or Australian soldier- its more a collective term denoting command.
fp470 2 years ago
Also the Australin Officail History makes this usage of troop, forces and soldier language as well.
As to your point about US forces- its not just about command but integration and authority. Just because in a few battles (the US got uppidy about British control of their troops) Britain commands SOME US forces doesnt make them British troops because they werent formed as British troops in mind.
Also Britain as Australia's cause hasthe possessive authority to label Aust troops British
fp470 2 years ago
@ThaMahstah Not so sure about the Saxon bit, 'cause they weren't part of a German empire or mandate.
whowantsabighug 1 year ago
@whowantsabighug Saxony was part by the German Empire at the time of WW1.
ThaMahstah 1 year ago
@ThaMahstah Oh right, i thought you were talking about Anglo-Saxons.
whowantsabighug 1 year ago
@whowantsabighug
i think the absence of the word `anglo` was a pretty big clue there.
silu81 1 year ago
@ThaMahstah After 1916 though Aussie troops had a separate command which hasn't changed to this day - Aussie troops in Afghanistan are not still "British" troops.
gnarkillkicksass 1 year ago
@gnarkillkicksass Well, Australia is a full, independent country now.
ThaMahstah 1 year ago
@ThaMahstah you forgot new zealand dickhead
boxing238 1 year ago
@ThaMahstah They were Commonwealth troops you idiot. Not British.
craazyman85 11 months ago
@craazyman85 The idea of a proper "Commonwealth" didn't emerge until AFTER the First World War. At the time of this battle, it was still very much an EMPIRE.
ThaMahstah 11 months ago
@ThaMahstah Actually the British Commonwealth of Nations came into being in 1926 through the Balfour Declaration, the Statute of Westminster was formalised in 1931 (but it wasn't ratified by Newfoundland, although Australia and NZ did), and the London Declaration was in 1949, when the word "British" was dropped and it became just the "Commonwealth of Nations"
roseanne74 10 months ago
@roseanne74 Yes...that's after World War One.
ThaMahstah 10 months ago
Comment removed
roseanne74 10 months ago
@craazyman85 No - they were classed as British troops until well after the end of World War I - see below.
roseanne74 10 months ago
@ThaMahstah Australians were British then and are still to some small extent British now.
ValiantVendetta 9 months ago
@ValiantVendetta I was born in Aus so that means I'm a smelly pom? Don't make me laugh.
MsSloppyseconds 8 months ago
@MsSloppyseconds Australia was at one point an entirely British country founded and settled mostly by British and Irish colonists and convicts. Australia's culture, language, sports, cuisine and heritage used to be entirely British and Irish, these roots are the bedrock of Australia society although they are becoming increasingly less emphasized and often looked down upon more recent and less grateful generations. It wasn't long ago we had a Prime Minister claim to be British to the bootstraps.
ValiantVendetta 8 months ago
@MsSloppyseconds We are not making you laugh, but lets face it, its true, you convict
MrCagivaman 7 months ago
@MrCagivaman Who the fuck are you? Go kill yourself.
MsSloppyseconds 7 months ago
That's the problem with infantry here to slow. In fact they should have just made a mounted charge in the first place.
LordWellington15 2 years ago
Well its really a bad idea. Had they known they were making a mounted attack they would have taken necessary anti cavarly precaustions. Namley Shell them not as they apporached but shell a fixed position and roll the fire toward their own lines and cease fire a safe distance from their own lines. Also they would have formed up machine gun positions in advance. It worked because it was a HUGE surprise.
fp470 2 years ago
British Forces?? haha yeah, typical, send in the Australians first!!!
Goodnix 2 years ago
Well thats what the Austtralian LIght Horse and New Zealand Mounted Rifles were trained and expected to do. You send in cavarly first to attack the enemy' flank and rear.
Beersheba was too far for the British infarnty to walk, its across teh middle of a desert after all
fp470 2 years ago
my point exactly
Goodnix 2 years ago
light horse are mounted infantry, not cavalry.
seedy80 2 years ago
Well they wer used inmany cavarly roles and eventually became cavalry officially in 1918 with issue of swords and sword drill.
Also whilst the are mounted infantry in some senses many aspects of them were cavarly like.
Finally you must keep in mind that by the late 1800s the Napoleonic conception of cavarly, dragoons and mounted infantry had been transformed. British cavarly were expected to conduct both mounted and dismounted by the 1890s.
fp470 2 years ago
Note, I meant to say mounted rifles not mounted infantry. There is a diffrence. Hmm I think it needs a video to explain the difference.
fp470 2 years ago
Is This World War II ?
SouthParkOnlineTV 2 years ago
No :P
HenryvKeiper 2 years ago
Which Battle Then ?
SouthParkOnlineTV 2 years ago
It's the British fighting the Turks - it's World War I, and the Battle of Beersheba, as the title says.
HenryvKeiper 2 years ago
Ah Ok,
Thanks For The Info.
SouthParkOnlineTV 2 years ago
no its the Aussie lighthorse
CJL1194 2 years ago
As part of the British force, yes.
HenryvKeiper 2 years ago
True but thay are Aussies not brits so thay fight for Astralia
CJL1194 2 years ago
Under the British command, yes. The order to attack was the British superior.
HenryvKeiper 2 years ago
HenryvKeiper, stop trying to give the brits credit of this Great aussie victory. The brits didnt know shit about how to command Australian troops, especially the light horse, (the normal Brit strategy for the light horse was; charge them into the range of the enemies guns then get them to dismount, were they drunk on tea or something!) in the battle of Beersheba the Australian troops were commanded by Australian officers and no brits, so this is no way a British victory.
lilolaus 2 years ago
The supreme commander during the operation was Allenby. He was British. The main control was British. QED - British victory. The Australians deserve credit, yes, but I'm not "trying to give the brits credit," just stating facts. If you look at my dialogue with people with the other videos I've glorified the ANZACs and even said part of my inspiration for uploading all these scenes was ANZAC Day - you know, to glorify the Aussies and NZ'ers. So please, I'm not in the mood for conspiracy theories.
HenryvKeiper 2 years ago