@TThorne931 The Brit. Army consists of British soldiers. That means the men came from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Whatever the relationship between Britain and Ireland, there have always been large numbers of Irish living in England and all over Britain. They would be absorbed into the Military, natch.
@TThorne931 O/k here's the 'Brit Breakdown' of who was there. From the RD site: Eng.49, Monmouthshire.18, Irish.16, Welsh.14, Scots.1, Unknown.21 = 119. The other 20 (tot.139) would've been the Natal Native Contingent. In the movie they scarpered. Not surprising as they knew what the Zulus were capable of doing to prisoners, the neighbouring tribes being shit-scared of the Zulus.
What cruel bastards the Brits were. What the f... were you doing in someone elses country? No business in being in Zululand. Those men were defending their families. You have destroyed a nation, and left yet another legacy of blood. How 'brave' the squaddies shooting down the fuzzy wuzzies? No. How brave are the ZULU. Shame on Britain and their raping empire. From IRELAND
@beirbuadh I bet you didn't know that Rorke's Drift was in Natal, land Chaka himself gave to the British years ago. So the Zulus were invading British territory. Against orders from their king. They weren't "defending their families." They were looting and burning farms on the British side of the river. The British leader, Lt. Bromhead, was Irish. Rorke's Drift was named after an Irishman.
@beirbuadh fuck off you pape bastard i didnt think you had the internet living in a third world country an all, c'mon the para's, lets have another Boyne, Sunday funny Sunday. Would you like another 7 billion to keep your pissy little country afloat
@Hereticalable it should be noted that archaeological records show that Native Americans killed off the Indigenous race that populated the Americas before the whiteman ever came to would become the USA. So please, take your hatred of white people somwhere else and stop speaking out of ignorance.
Isn't it obvious that this was an anti-war motion picture that actually paid homage to both cultures while speaking to the horrors of war? The Zulu warrior is exceedingly brave. The British are stalwart men turned by Fate's hand. Both display great courage & in turn gain respect for their opponents-something only combat veterans might truly understand. I like the fact that both cultures (Welsh & Zulu) historically own a very musical or vocal inheritance. even tho most were brits, not welsh
@gyrofoam1 yes, you're correct but i didnt have enough room to complete my thought ha! the singing contest was cetainly poetic license. and the elements of the 124th at rorkes drift were in fact english, not welsh. i swear i would've crapped my pants seeing all those fierce men with spears charging down on me & all i had was a single shot rifle. I have read that the zulus were actually more cautious of the bayonets than the rifle fire. this i find most interesting
@panthercreek60 I think I would, too. The Zulus were contemptuous of bullets but the bayonat was a different matter entirely. The assegai was re-modeled after Shaka had observed the Brits at bayonet practice. If you see a pic of him from 1839, you'll notice that his spear is a long-shafted weapon with a small head, better for throwing. The re-model has a longer, bayonet length head and a short shaft - more a stabbing weapon for close fighting.
@gyrofoam1 most interesting. I didnt know this. i read a rather exhaustive tome on the Zulu culture many years ago. I found it fascinating. Thanks for the info, very much
@panthercreek60 The movie makes it look like it was bullet vs spear, when both sides had guns. But in the struggle in the burning hospital, it was close quarters combat, spear against bayonet. Especially when ammo started running low. This is one thing that the movie got right.
your all just a bunch of liberal cry babies that would rather see the degredation of your own race than to lose even one of your precious "minorities" you all suffer from middle or upper class white guilt
The only reason the UK no longer engages in Imperialism is because they have no power anymore. I wish the US conquered nations like the West claim. It would save us some serious bills we have to pay.
What I got from this movie were two groups both honorable and both set in their ways. While both were wrong, in their own ways, each had honor. There was talk about the Zulu disemboweling fallen British army members, this was done so the souls of the dead could find their way to the after life. Consideration for your enemy was central to the Zulus it became evident that the men on the British side ended with thie same sense of respect.
@winstonchurchill95 The British didn’t want to kill all of them. They needed people to tax and exploit. The whole purpose of colonialism was to exploit labor and natural resources in Africa. It was the same thing with the slave trade. The British did kill off all of the Tasmanians and I do know about that.
Everyone knows how much slavery Britain did but it was only more than the Spanish or the French because we had a bigger Empire. People forget that when people knew it was wrong, Britain was the country that fought against others on behalf of the slaves after the abolishment. Plus, our twats in government have been shovelling immigrants into our country to make up for past racism. Anyway, i'm proud of my small country that came much closer to ruling the world than anyone else from a tiny island.
it takes bravery and a will to serve your people to the utmost end to do what the zulu did, they knew of what to come...those red coats didn't even go to hell the devil didnt want them they live on in people that hide behind nuclear weapons and steal from the poor jheeze
the chief of the Zulus at the time this movie was made said Stanley Baxter was the greatest white man who ever lived as he ,made the Zulu Nation look proud before the world, they wernt just the barbarians that British history has painted them to be! Altho this picture is not historically accurate in every sense they did an amazing job of showing the bravery and intelligence of this great African Nation, who were simply defending their homeland from an aggressive European Power! Awesome movie :Dx
@BriefEncounter1987 He didn't say that Baker was" the greatest white man who ever lived", how would he know who that was?(TGWMWEL!). British History has Never stated that "the Zulus were barbarians", where did you read that? The Zulus were not "defending their homeland against an aggressive European power", they Were an Aggressive, Expansionist Empire who were far more vicious "conquerors" than the British ever were. Have you never seen the TV movie, Shaka Zulu?.
@slideharp1 the leader of the zulu tribe "at the time this film was made"! they felt Baxter was one of the best white men alive as he treated them with respect....giving them the buildings and the cattle used on the film as the SA gov wouldnt allow them to be paid the same wages! PLUS i am not saying the Zulu was not aggressive, they were....however in this instance the British WERE THE AGGRESSIVE ONES! The brits could be pretty vicious sometimes when they wanted to be...i know im
@BriefEncounter1987 ..2)..fully Aware of the Zulus fighting ability - along with all the African Nations who'd been destroyed by them as they gobbled up Africa in building their Empire. If you've seen the movie about Shaka - a "great movie" - WTF does that Mean??, you'd know what a ruthless homicidal maniac he was, killing most of his many brothers to become King. He liked impaling people. Having them eaten alive by ants was another amusing pastime. He didn't become Emperor by being "noble"!!
@slideharp1 im a Ohd Student specialising in Victorian Imperialism, EMpire and Conflict! Also they british did consider the Zulu a barbarian (This attitude changed as they reaslised how good they were at fighting)....just been looking at a newspaper article from 1879 entitled "the zulu barbarian crisis"! i have seen shaka zulu, its an exellent piece of film making!
@BriefEncounter1987 He didn't say Sir Stanley Baker was "the greatest white man who ever lived" when they were making the movie. He told Baker's WIFE that S.B. was 'the finest white man he'd ever known" when he went to the man's funeral. If you're a 'specialist on Victorian Imperialism' (how quaint), you'd know better than to quote a Newspaper(!) as "British history". The Brits didn't "consider them barbarians until they found out how well they fought", you just Made That Up!. They were...
@BriefEncounter1987 3) Being a "specialist on British Victorian Imperialism puts you in an historical microcosm, bub. The people who considered the Zulus 'barbarians' were the Boers. They built SA in the first place, along with the Orange Free State and the Transvaal. You Do Know the history of the Boers, don't you?, begin there. Are you also a specialist in French Imperial aspirations in both Europe and Africa?. Find out why the Brits took control of SA from the Boers. It's not in a movie, BTW.
@slideharp1 its funny that you should say dont look at newspapers, coz thats what my thesis is on....how the media portrayed conflict! i do know about the Boers and im saying its a good movie from the point of view of what theyr saying..you know interesting? good piece of technical filming....why are we arguing just out of curiosity?? btw im not "making stuff up"! do you study history by any chance??? look at primary sources and analyse.....so "not looking at papers" is ignoring a vital source
@slideharp1 thankyou :) should be interesting to see if newspapers spout as much bullcrap as they do today....so far....it seems they do :) have a good one xxx
@BriefEncounter1987 If you are doing a thesis on how the newspapers wrote about this war, have you read "In Zululand with the British Army: The Anglo-Zulu War of 1879" by Charles Norris-Newman? He's the guy they call "Noggs" in "Zulu Dawn." You can download a copy free from Google Books.
@slideharp1 wow you do know your history ? if need any help please let me know and well done for adding we was asked to help in the orange free state i am totaly impressed
@earthforce2 If you'd actually seen this movie (you Have seen it, haven't you?) you'd have noticed that it opens onto the carnage at Isandlwana with a narrated intro in the form of a letter to QV describing the defeat along with the casualty figures.
@slideharp1 I have DVDs of both movies. But the other movie focuses on the main battle and describes how in detail how the disaster unfolded. IMO the stories complement each other, and they should both be seen together, just like "Flags of our fathers" and "Letters from Iwo Jima".
SAD!? THEIR FAMILIES ARE LIVING ON ALL SOCIAL SERVICES & GET FREE SCHOOLING IF THEY APPLY THEIR SELVES AND NEVER HAVE TO WORK. WHAT DO THEY GET IN AFRICA'S PLAINS? THEY WOULD NOT BE OBESE AND HAVE TO DO THEIR FAIR SHARE.THEY SHOULD BE GLAD SOME WERE TAKEN AWAY FROM THE AFRICAN CONTINENT SO THEY COULD HER-ASS THE CIVIL WORLD FOR ETERNITY.
This is realy sad how people are happy that the british killed so many zulus. The zulus where not evil they where defending there land. How is defending your home and family evil. The british where evil they when to africa to get slaves. The zulus where fighting for there peoples freedome.
The Zulus were defending their lands, but to many other Africa people the Zulus were evil, the British had no right to invade but they were welcomed by many natives, and after what the Zulus had done to the British, i guess they were just out for revenge....
@LouisRickful As much as I hate too say every empire has been the same. I'd surgest you research Shakka too see how awful people can be with power or even how well USA have treated all people as equals .
@LouisRickful eh? the same zulus that rapped there own women. the same zulus that enslaved other tripes in africa? the same zulus that sold slaves to the European powers in the slave triangle. better with the brits running it. besides, a gigantic military accomplishment made this worth remembering.
@sabaton1231 Ah, the Zulus were not involved in the slave triangle. There was the trans-Atlantic trade from west Africa and the Zanzibari trade from central and east Africa. There just weren't many harbors in Zulu territory.
Britain went from one of the biggest slave traders to one of its greatest enemies in just a few years.
@LouisRickful The Zulus were Not fighting "for there people's freedom", who told you that?! - they were Conquerors looking to continue their Imperial Expansion across Africa.
@LouisRickful incorrect, Shaka set in motion a set of events leading to the whoelsale slaughter and genocide of other african tribes. the british had colonised south africa and Shaka saw that as his next big threat to total domination of south africa.
the zulus were not fighting for freedom, they were fighting because they saw land that would make them rich, they saw the british as just another tribe to be conquered.
also africans had to SELL other africans into slavery. they are no less evil.
@LouisRickful Africans were enslaving each other long before the British got there. The Arabs were enslaving Africans some 500 years earlier and slavery STILL exists in Muslim African states today. The British Empire was an Empire...as such it wasn't always nice to other people. But Britain never had a policy of genocide like the US did with it's natives...and Britain ended slavery of it's own accord long before anyone else. Also...the Zulus were an Empire too...
@Hereticalable African slavery wasn't chattel slavery. African slavery was a form of punishment and the slave went free after their debt was paid off. Two forms of slavery can't be compared. Britain ended slavery to replace with colonization, or slavery under a different name.
@infox1000 That must be why most African slaves were sold by their own people. Seems only Western Civillisation can be criticised for slavery when chattel slavery has been going on since pre-history and the biggest and longest lasting African slave trade was run by the Muslim Arabs who don't even admit it most of the time. The standard of living for the average African compared to the average Western of African descent is vast - I wouldn't want to live in the lands of my African ancestors.
@Hereticalable "The people made worse off by slavery were those who were enslaved. Their descendants would have been worse off today if born in Africa instead of America. Put differently, the terrible fate of their ancestors benefitted them." - Dr.Thomas Sowell (a black American).
@Hereticalable Western Africans on average don’t seem to be fairing much better than those who are in Africa. There are still vast amounts of impoverished black people both in America and the Caribbean islands. Black people around the worldwide seem to be in a general state of suffering and chaos. Had Europe just left Africa alone, black people would’ve been much better off.
@infox1000 I have to saying having been to Africa and the Middle East and having a number of African friends who would leave tomorrow and move to the West if given half a chance that I disagree with you. What we consider poor in the West is not the same as poverty in Africa. Poverty aside the West has far more freedom and civil rights too. It seems you're more interesting in rubbishing western civillisation than accepting being black in the West is better generally than in Africa.
@Hereticalable Poverty in the West is people who are hungry and have poor housing. You see that among black people in Haiti, Jamaica, and even America. I’m sorry, but the living conditions of most black people in the West isn’t anything to brag about.
@infox1000 Another thing, saying Africa would be better off if left alone is pointless. What is done is done. And rest assured the West was not meddling in Africa first. Nor is Africa the only place to be exploited. The Arab Muslim Empire tried to exploit Europe for 1000 years and still occupies a lot of previously Christian, European land.
The question is what do we do now moving forward, rather than blaming people for the actions of their distant ancestors, specifically white people.
@Hereticalable There is moving forward for Africa or for black people until we start becoming self-reliant. History shows that white people have also been opposed to any time of self-sufficiency among black people, both in Africa and the West.
@Hereticalable "Britain had never a policy of genocide with its natives"..ask the Gaelic Irish, they almost wiped them out due to racial & religious intolerance, learn history before posting comments online.
The atrocities of the "British" will never be forgotten or forgiven in Ireland.
@gespb32 They not only almost wiped them all out, they did not stint to refer to their extinction (as a good thing and general goal) in precisely those terms.
@gespb32 If I want to ask the Gaelic Irish I can speak to my relatives in Cork. The attitude of never forgiven will not change the past. And the Irish are still around in great numbers, have their own country (hopefully unified one day peacefully) and run their own affairs. I'm thankful the British didn't do to the Irish what the Americans did to the Native Americans or I wouldn't be here today. Britain's big mistake domestically was it's unfair Union...that's why I support a British Republic.
@gespb32 well, it probably should be. We still have a hard time with the yankees burning every college & library here in the South(US) & we are still misrepresented in the press but our northern neighbors only know the lies they've been taught & are good folks, mostly. We can only hope for the world to turn & return to Constitutional freedom peacefully. We lost our war & it was a great tragedy but life goes on & its a waste of time to hate
@Hereticalable Oh dear Lord, you aren't seriously comparing 1000 years of British Rule to a hundred years of American farmers fighting savages are you??? Methinks the UK needs to start handing out less disingenuous history books. And to think that statement has a plus 14.
@SeanP7195 Britain has only been a country for 300-400 years so I'm not sure where the 1000 year figure comes from....more historical accuracy from people who have no idea about except that criticism of any nation of country isn't allowed unless it's Britain, America and Germany (ie; only white countries are bad)...The US government put native people on reservations, broke most of the treaties it made with them and committed repeated genocide for goodness sake. The Spanish were even worse...
@Hereticalable Yes, I agree that its sad that history revisionism only now allows for white nations to be guilty. They often leave out interesting facts such as.....Native tribes were not nature loving, peaceniks, who believed in only the laws of mother Earth. They were in fact, savage, slave trading, mindless barbarians. Today, the United States coddles natives like a child with a cold. I'm not exactly sure what people like you are expecting of the world.
@SeanP7195 I think a little more attention to facts would be better than the current trend of blame whitey for everything...the fact is other nations have been brutal, wicked and evil too...some more so.
@LouisRickful completely wrong, learn a little bit about history before you make such ill informed comments! Slavery was abolished in Britain in 1772 and the slavery trade outlawed in 1807 with The Slavery Abolition Act coming in 1833. The Battle of Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift took place in 1879. They went to Zulu land as they considered the Zulu kingdom a threat to a british colony called Natal that it shared its border with on the Tugela River. It was a simple case of invading for expansion.
@panese All quite correct, but I should point out that the order to invade did NOT come from London. The Colonial Office was dead set against any expansion, and Sir Bartle Frere annexed Transvaal and invaded Zululand. There would be two major wars in less than a year there as a result.
@LouisRickful Atleast if you're going to make idiotic claims have the correct grammar to not make yourself look like an idiot. *Really - *were - *were - *Their - *were *went *were *their *freedom. Congratulations. Also the reason behind people being happy about this battle was due to the fact there were some 100 Brits Vs some 1000 or so Zulus, those are some bad odds for the Brits but they overcame those odds.
2:58 that munitions crate is one of the reasons Brits lost this war....those munitions crates took forever to open and in a battle against superior numbers you need to restock ammo fast.
@ellis3210 The regiment defending Rorke's Drift was the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot. There was perhaps 10% of the men at this battle who would call themselves Welsh. Even though their depot was in Brecon, I would bet that most of the men had never set foot in Wales.
@gespb32 would u not be scared if you saw this moving mass of about 4000 charging at you in a zombie state knowing there's no reinforcements no re-spawn have limited ammo and the enemy also had rifles nearly a quarter of British deaths were from gun shots the reasons we make it look easy was because we were trained we had strategy and plans and god on our side so stop hatting on us. unless you and about 150 mates get attacked by 4000 people
@underdog111111111111 You had "god" on your side? are you taking the pi*s? They had 19th C.E. military training & weapons on their side! btw who is "we"?!..there can be no comparison between a 19th century trained British unit who were trained with modern rifle & artillery techniques against a native african "force", that has got to be the dumbest statement on you tube ever posted.
@ImperialistRunningDo the big question is did the basic infantryman know this and the reinforcements didn't even make it before the end of the battle so there a lot of good them... not
@underdog111111111111 Maj. Spalding was the commanding officer at Rorke's Drift. He rode off that morning to see where the reinforcements were and to jog them along. As he was leaving, he put Chard in charge, "Not that anything will happen" he said. A poor example of judgement. I would guess that most of the men knew this. Some of them even saw the reinforcements stop in the distance and retreat (now THAT would be discouraging!)
ive seen this movie probably 50 times. i love watching all of those worthless african niggers get slaughtered like the filthy nigger pigs that they are.
@hdbirkmyre They wouldn't become the South Wales Borderers until 2 years after the Anglo-Zulu War was over. Many men at Rorke's Drift were from Wales, but just as many were from the Midlands or London.
@ImperialistRunningDo Thanks for speaking truth to ignorance, you remind me of aOeOroberts. All of that nigger this and nigger that, bullshit gets tiresome, keep up the good work and great comments. uSuthu!!
@Ngobamakosi Thank you. I'm getting two compliments in one day.... There's some computer glitch that won't let me log into my a0e0roberts account. YouTube hasn't closed my account, I still get messages etc. I just can't LOG IN. Dratted thing.
While I log in here to keep learning history (I get lots of good book suggestions), I get a guilty pleasure in annoying some of the racists that leave messages here.
@Ellis307 The figures have been posted many times by scholars of the Zulu Wars. I'm not one, but here they are anyway; 49 English, 18 Monmouthshire, 16 Irish, 1 Scots, 14 Welsh, 21 unknown. The regiment were the 2nd Warwickshires/24th of Foot (infantry) You can get all this from the RD website.
@ImperialistRunningDo Nah, that just proves niggers always want what white people have. Whether that be a fort, a field or a job and house paid for by the actual occupant and not the state.
@Eiraha Ha, ha, you are quite the comic. This war was started by an Englishman, Sir Bartle Frere, who wanted what the Zulu had. You could read up on it.
But otherwise, I agree with you. I think most blacks want what I have: an education, a career, a stable home, a car...
@ImperialistRunningDo I'm not gona get into racial bullshit, but how could you possibly expect 1 regiment to defeat 10000 zulu, the fact we won this battle is a miracle on it's own
@11Cheesewaffles I'm not going to get into racial bullshit either. How about some numbers?
Isandlwana, Jan, 22, 1879 -- British forces: 1,200 men, Zulu: 12,000 - 20,000. Result complete rout of the British.
Kambula, March 29 -- British: 2,000, Zulu 20,000. Result: resounding British victory.
The difference is in the leadership. Col Evelyn Wood knew damn well what to expect if he lost; he'd barely escaped with his life the previous day at Hlobane. Kambula was properly dug in and laagered.
@11Cheesewaffles Mehlokazulu, son of chief Sihayo and leader of the inGobamakhosi regiment, said this:
"My opinion of the fight at Isandlwana is that if the English had stuck together more than they did, they would have beaten us. As it was they nearly did so, and I believe they owe their defeat to their being so much divided... When we attacked the camp I never thought we could have beaten the English; and we were all astonished at the way they fought." (The Red Soldier, Frank Emery, p. 26)
@kemetkush The land that god gave them? I will not argue theology, but if you're interested in history... God may (or may not) have given that land to the Cele, Buthelezi, Swazi or a dozen other tribes, but He (She/It/Them) did NOT give it to the Zulus. Shaka kaSenzangakhona did, after taking it by force from those tribes..
I will NOT approve of what the British did in 1879, but it was land stolen and NOT god-given. Both the British and Zulu were expanding empires.
you can argue like little babies all day but the end is the same. we all turn to ash or get eaten by maggots. no ones better than someone else anymore we're entirely fucked.
jimincairns is a retired, uptight idiot who's posted the same comment about Lee-Enfields rifles being used in the movie (presumably to appear knowledgeable on the subject) on All the channels featuring the movie"Zulu". I explained why they were used but he then posted the same 'comment' elsewhere and then everywhere. In his replies he uses phrases like heheheh and Mwahahah. It's sad to see the elderly going to pieces and wanting everyone on the internet to see it. Maybe it's a 'cry for help'.
@slideharp1 He just told me to bite him, instead of his usual "hehehe." If he wants to be bitten, he's going to need a Rottweiler and a LARGE bottle of steak sauce.
The Fuzzy-Wuzzies don't like it up em
SuperMikey1960 1 week ago
Defiance in the face of almost certain annihilation...quite inspiring.
Lammy4ever7 1 month ago 9
I love this battle amazing movie!
Gazza660 1 month ago 4
Comment removed
gyrofoam1 1 month ago
Comment removed
gyrofoam1 1 month ago in playlist More videos from ColourSergeantBourne
Yes...don't fuck with the British Army
gunnermorph01 1 month ago
Freakin' Muhammad
ChadC919 1 month ago
England what happened
TThorne931 1 month ago
@TThorne931 no not England. BRITAIN my friend
Leonidis78 1 month ago
@Leonidis78 No England
TThorne931 1 month ago
@TThorne931 The Brit. Army consists of British soldiers. That means the men came from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Whatever the relationship between Britain and Ireland, there have always been large numbers of Irish living in England and all over Britain. They would be absorbed into the Military, natch.
gyrofoam1 1 month ago
@TThorne931 sorry i will change it. from my friend to you little ignorant uneducated little cunt
Leonidis78 1 month ago
Comment removed
gyrofoam1 4 weeks ago
@TThorne931 O/k here's the 'Brit Breakdown' of who was there. From the RD site: Eng.49, Monmouthshire.18, Irish.16, Welsh.14, Scots.1, Unknown.21 = 119. The other 20 (tot.139) would've been the Natal Native Contingent. In the movie they scarpered. Not surprising as they knew what the Zulus were capable of doing to prisoners, the neighbouring tribes being shit-scared of the Zulus.
gyrofoam1 1 month ago
Isnt this Zulu Dawn? The movie Zulu was made before Zulu Dawn right?
booksrule0240 2 months ago
@booksrule0240
No, it's from Zulu, 1964
HarrietVane 2 months ago
@booksrule0240 Zulu was released first...Zulu dawn came after this film.
gunnermorph01 1 month ago
porn
MrSAS1997 2 months ago
me put pointy on stick
pumpkinsoul12 2 months ago
Comment removed
Th3Insurgent 2 months ago
What cruel bastards the Brits were. What the f... were you doing in someone elses country? No business in being in Zululand. Those men were defending their families. You have destroyed a nation, and left yet another legacy of blood. How 'brave' the squaddies shooting down the fuzzy wuzzies? No. How brave are the ZULU. Shame on Britain and their raping empire. From IRELAND
beirbuadh 2 months ago
@beirbuadh I bet you didn't know that Rorke's Drift was in Natal, land Chaka himself gave to the British years ago. So the Zulus were invading British territory. Against orders from their king. They weren't "defending their families." They were looting and burning farms on the British side of the river. The British leader, Lt. Bromhead, was Irish. Rorke's Drift was named after an Irishman.
The Fuzzy Wuzzies were in Sudan.
ImperialistRunningDo 2 months ago 2
@beirbuadh typical brit hater....
paz77ful 2 months ago
@beirbuadh fuck off you pape bastard i didnt think you had the internet living in a third world country an all, c'mon the para's, lets have another Boyne, Sunday funny Sunday. Would you like another 7 billion to keep your pissy little country afloat
Leonidis78 1 month ago
Comment removed
Leonidis78 1 month ago
Comment removed
Leonidis78 1 month ago
Comment removed
Leonidis78 1 month ago
British balls of steel.
AdoPotts6 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
One of the greatest films ever made.
Uniflux 3 months ago
How in the god damned... I'm not even welsh let alone British yet I feel proud of being welsh, what an odd yet proud feeling...
namanicha 3 months ago
@Hereticalable it should be noted that archaeological records show that Native Americans killed off the Indigenous race that populated the Americas before the whiteman ever came to would become the USA. So please, take your hatred of white people somwhere else and stop speaking out of ignorance.
luopo 3 months ago
Comment removed
slideharp1 3 months ago in playlist More videos from ColourSergeantBourne
@luopo Yes, they came across the Bering Strait and would've been Asian in origin.
slideharp1 3 months ago in playlist More videos from ColourSergeantBourne
Isn't it obvious that this was an anti-war motion picture that actually paid homage to both cultures while speaking to the horrors of war? The Zulu warrior is exceedingly brave. The British are stalwart men turned by Fate's hand. Both display great courage & in turn gain respect for their opponents-something only combat veterans might truly understand. I like the fact that both cultures (Welsh & Zulu) historically own a very musical or vocal inheritance. even tho most were brits, not welsh
panthercreek60 3 months ago
@panthercreek60 Not to put a damper on things but the "song contest" didn't actually happen. Most of the battle took place at night.
gyrofoam1 3 months ago in playlist More videos from ColourSergeantBourne
@gyrofoam1 yes, you're correct but i didnt have enough room to complete my thought ha! the singing contest was cetainly poetic license. and the elements of the 124th at rorkes drift were in fact english, not welsh. i swear i would've crapped my pants seeing all those fierce men with spears charging down on me & all i had was a single shot rifle. I have read that the zulus were actually more cautious of the bayonets than the rifle fire. this i find most interesting
panthercreek60 3 months ago
@panthercreek60 I think I would, too. The Zulus were contemptuous of bullets but the bayonat was a different matter entirely. The assegai was re-modeled after Shaka had observed the Brits at bayonet practice. If you see a pic of him from 1839, you'll notice that his spear is a long-shafted weapon with a small head, better for throwing. The re-model has a longer, bayonet length head and a short shaft - more a stabbing weapon for close fighting.
gyrofoam1 3 months ago
@gyrofoam1 most interesting. I didnt know this. i read a rather exhaustive tome on the Zulu culture many years ago. I found it fascinating. Thanks for the info, very much
panthercreek60 3 months ago
Comment removed
gyrofoam1 3 months ago
@panthercreek60 The movie makes it look like it was bullet vs spear, when both sides had guns. But in the struggle in the burning hospital, it was close quarters combat, spear against bayonet. Especially when ammo started running low. This is one thing that the movie got right.
ImperialistRunningDo 3 months ago
My eyes have seen the glory of the trampling at the zoo.....
namanicha 4 months ago
i just wanna know who else would shit themselves knowing how close the enemy was to you after the smoke cleared in the battle?
jonitis117 4 months ago
your all just a bunch of liberal cry babies that would rather see the degredation of your own race than to lose even one of your precious "minorities" you all suffer from middle or upper class white guilt
chouston80 4 months ago
The only reason the UK no longer engages in Imperialism is because they have no power anymore. I wish the US conquered nations like the West claim. It would save us some serious bills we have to pay.
SeanP7195 4 months ago in playlist SeanP7195's Favorited Videos
12 Victoria Crosses were given out at Rorke's Drift. What a fight
the British put up especially after getting slaughtered at Isandlwana.
32a34a 4 months ago
Weird how gespb32 speaks English, isn't it?
transonicbuoy1 4 months ago
What I got from this movie were two groups both honorable and both set in their ways. While both were wrong, in their own ways, each had honor. There was talk about the Zulu disemboweling fallen British army members, this was done so the souls of the dead could find their way to the after life. Consideration for your enemy was central to the Zulus it became evident that the men on the British side ended with thie same sense of respect.
mrbdguard100 4 months ago in playlist mrbdguard100's Favorited Videos
@winstonchurchill95 The British didn’t want to kill all of them. They needed people to tax and exploit. The whole purpose of colonialism was to exploit labor and natural resources in Africa. It was the same thing with the slave trade. The British did kill off all of the Tasmanians and I do know about that.
infox1000 4 months ago
@winstonchurchill95 Because your celebrating the genocide of the native African people.
infox1000 4 months ago
@winstonchurchill95 So the British take pride in knowing that they slaughtered millions of people to expand their wealth?
infox1000 4 months ago
gives me goose bumps this so proud
micathasteings 5 months ago
Everyone knows how much slavery Britain did but it was only more than the Spanish or the French because we had a bigger Empire. People forget that when people knew it was wrong, Britain was the country that fought against others on behalf of the slaves after the abolishment. Plus, our twats in government have been shovelling immigrants into our country to make up for past racism. Anyway, i'm proud of my small country that came much closer to ruling the world than anyone else from a tiny island.
15GamingGuy 5 months ago
it takes bravery and a will to serve your people to the utmost end to do what the zulu did, they knew of what to come...those red coats didn't even go to hell the devil didnt want them they live on in people that hide behind nuclear weapons and steal from the poor jheeze
phantom45m 5 months ago
@phantom45m The red coats are still running you country, I see. :-)
TheLiberalKnight 5 months ago
Comment removed
BriefEncounter1987 5 months ago
Comment removed
BriefEncounter1987 5 months ago
The white man saves the day again.
IntergalacticFetus99 5 months ago
the chief of the Zulus at the time this movie was made said Stanley Baxter was the greatest white man who ever lived as he ,made the Zulu Nation look proud before the world, they wernt just the barbarians that British history has painted them to be! Altho this picture is not historically accurate in every sense they did an amazing job of showing the bravery and intelligence of this great African Nation, who were simply defending their homeland from an aggressive European Power! Awesome movie :Dx
BriefEncounter1987 5 months ago
@BriefEncounter1987 He didn't say that Baker was" the greatest white man who ever lived", how would he know who that was?(TGWMWEL!). British History has Never stated that "the Zulus were barbarians", where did you read that? The Zulus were not "defending their homeland against an aggressive European power", they Were an Aggressive, Expansionist Empire who were far more vicious "conquerors" than the British ever were. Have you never seen the TV movie, Shaka Zulu?.
slideharp1 5 months ago
@slideharp1 the leader of the zulu tribe "at the time this film was made"! they felt Baxter was one of the best white men alive as he treated them with respect....giving them the buildings and the cattle used on the film as the SA gov wouldnt allow them to be paid the same wages! PLUS i am not saying the Zulu was not aggressive, they were....however in this instance the British WERE THE AGGRESSIVE ONES! The brits could be pretty vicious sometimes when they wanted to be...i know im
BriefEncounter1987 5 months ago
@BriefEncounter1987 ..2)..fully Aware of the Zulus fighting ability - along with all the African Nations who'd been destroyed by them as they gobbled up Africa in building their Empire. If you've seen the movie about Shaka - a "great movie" - WTF does that Mean??, you'd know what a ruthless homicidal maniac he was, killing most of his many brothers to become King. He liked impaling people. Having them eaten alive by ants was another amusing pastime. He didn't become Emperor by being "noble"!!
slideharp1 5 months ago
@slideharp1 That is true very bloody stuff
knoencowo 5 months ago
@slideharp1 im a Ohd Student specialising in Victorian Imperialism, EMpire and Conflict! Also they british did consider the Zulu a barbarian (This attitude changed as they reaslised how good they were at fighting)....just been looking at a newspaper article from 1879 entitled "the zulu barbarian crisis"! i have seen shaka zulu, its an exellent piece of film making!
BriefEncounter1987 5 months ago
@BriefEncounter1987 He didn't say Sir Stanley Baker was "the greatest white man who ever lived" when they were making the movie. He told Baker's WIFE that S.B. was 'the finest white man he'd ever known" when he went to the man's funeral. If you're a 'specialist on Victorian Imperialism' (how quaint), you'd know better than to quote a Newspaper(!) as "British history". The Brits didn't "consider them barbarians until they found out how well they fought", you just Made That Up!. They were...
slideharp1 5 months ago
@BriefEncounter1987 3) Being a "specialist on British Victorian Imperialism puts you in an historical microcosm, bub. The people who considered the Zulus 'barbarians' were the Boers. They built SA in the first place, along with the Orange Free State and the Transvaal. You Do Know the history of the Boers, don't you?, begin there. Are you also a specialist in French Imperial aspirations in both Europe and Africa?. Find out why the Brits took control of SA from the Boers. It's not in a movie, BTW.
slideharp1 5 months ago
@slideharp1 its funny that you should say dont look at newspapers, coz thats what my thesis is on....how the media portrayed conflict! i do know about the Boers and im saying its a good movie from the point of view of what theyr saying..you know interesting? good piece of technical filming....why are we arguing just out of curiosity?? btw im not "making stuff up"! do you study history by any chance??? look at primary sources and analyse.....so "not looking at papers" is ignoring a vital source
BriefEncounter1987 5 months ago
@BriefEncounter1987 Good luck with your thesis, buddy.
slideharp1 5 months ago
@slideharp1 thankyou :) should be interesting to see if newspapers spout as much bullcrap as they do today....so far....it seems they do :) have a good one xxx
BriefEncounter1987 5 months ago
@BriefEncounter1987 If you are doing a thesis on how the newspapers wrote about this war, have you read "In Zululand with the British Army: The Anglo-Zulu War of 1879" by Charles Norris-Newman? He's the guy they call "Noggs" in "Zulu Dawn." You can download a copy free from Google Books.
ImperialistRunningDo 4 months ago
@slideharp1 wow you do know your history ? if need any help please let me know and well done for adding we was asked to help in the orange free state i am totaly impressed
cypruskev 5 months ago
@cypruskev You're welcome:-
slideharp1 5 months ago
The other side of this is the movie Zulu Dawn which shows the battle of Isandhlwana, where the outcome is reversed. They should be watched together.
earthforce2 6 months ago
@earthforce2 If you'd actually seen this movie (you Have seen it, haven't you?) you'd have noticed that it opens onto the carnage at Isandlwana with a narrated intro in the form of a letter to QV describing the defeat along with the casualty figures.
slideharp1 6 months ago
@slideharp1 I have DVDs of both movies. But the other movie focuses on the main battle and describes how in detail how the disaster unfolded. IMO the stories complement each other, and they should both be seen together, just like "Flags of our fathers" and "Letters from Iwo Jima".
earthforce2 6 months ago
The other side of this is the movie Zulu Dawn which shows the battle of Isandhlwana, where the outcome is reversed.
earthforce2 6 months ago
Give a wog a fish and he will feed his family...
Give a wog a fishing rod and he will sell it and buy a fish..
Africans are pretty dumb.
NMSCENS2 6 months ago
SAD!? THEIR FAMILIES ARE LIVING ON ALL SOCIAL SERVICES & GET FREE SCHOOLING IF THEY APPLY THEIR SELVES AND NEVER HAVE TO WORK. WHAT DO THEY GET IN AFRICA'S PLAINS? THEY WOULD NOT BE OBESE AND HAVE TO DO THEIR FAIR SHARE.THEY SHOULD BE GLAD SOME WERE TAKEN AWAY FROM THE AFRICAN CONTINENT SO THEY COULD HER-ASS THE CIVIL WORLD FOR ETERNITY.
Y2R4U 6 months ago
The zulus may hav lost but they will always be heros in my heart
gangsterlad121 6 months ago
This is realy sad how people are happy that the british killed so many zulus. The zulus where not evil they where defending there land. How is defending your home and family evil. The british where evil they when to africa to get slaves. The zulus where fighting for there peoples freedome.
LouisRickful 6 months ago
@LouisRickful
The Zulus were defending their lands, but to many other Africa people the Zulus were evil, the British had no right to invade but they were welcomed by many natives, and after what the Zulus had done to the British, i guess they were just out for revenge....
SuperCSEllis 6 months ago
@LouisRickful As much as I hate too say every empire has been the same. I'd surgest you research Shakka too see how awful people can be with power or even how well USA have treated all people as equals .
REALL705 6 months ago
@LouisRickful eh? the same zulus that rapped there own women. the same zulus that enslaved other tripes in africa? the same zulus that sold slaves to the European powers in the slave triangle. better with the brits running it. besides, a gigantic military accomplishment made this worth remembering.
sabaton1231 6 months ago
@sabaton1231 Ah, the Zulus were not involved in the slave triangle. There was the trans-Atlantic trade from west Africa and the Zanzibari trade from central and east Africa. There just weren't many harbors in Zulu territory.
Britain went from one of the biggest slave traders to one of its greatest enemies in just a few years.
ImperialistRunningDo 6 months ago
@ImperialistRunningDo well thats what happens when you ban slave trading and expand :P
sabaton1231 6 months ago
@sabaton1231 No, that's what happens when you put your Navy on the high-seas to Do Something About It.
slideharp1 6 months ago
@LouisRickful The Zulus were Not fighting "for there people's freedom", who told you that?! - they were Conquerors looking to continue their Imperial Expansion across Africa.
slideharp1 6 months ago
@LouisRickful Read a little bit more of the history of this particular period and then feel free to offer a more informed opinion.
pitcalco 6 months ago
@LouisRickful Survival of the fittest
dgreear63 6 months ago
@LouisRickful incorrect, Shaka set in motion a set of events leading to the whoelsale slaughter and genocide of other african tribes. the british had colonised south africa and Shaka saw that as his next big threat to total domination of south africa.
the zulus were not fighting for freedom, they were fighting because they saw land that would make them rich, they saw the british as just another tribe to be conquered.
also africans had to SELL other africans into slavery. they are no less evil.
theliberator1 6 months ago
@LouisRickful Africans were enslaving each other long before the British got there. The Arabs were enslaving Africans some 500 years earlier and slavery STILL exists in Muslim African states today. The British Empire was an Empire...as such it wasn't always nice to other people. But Britain never had a policy of genocide like the US did with it's natives...and Britain ended slavery of it's own accord long before anyone else. Also...the Zulus were an Empire too...
Hereticalable 6 months ago 30
@Hereticalable Well said.
1859Logik1936 6 months ago
@Hereticalable African slavery wasn't chattel slavery. African slavery was a form of punishment and the slave went free after their debt was paid off. Two forms of slavery can't be compared. Britain ended slavery to replace with colonization, or slavery under a different name.
infox1000 4 months ago
@infox1000 That must be why most African slaves were sold by their own people. Seems only Western Civillisation can be criticised for slavery when chattel slavery has been going on since pre-history and the biggest and longest lasting African slave trade was run by the Muslim Arabs who don't even admit it most of the time. The standard of living for the average African compared to the average Western of African descent is vast - I wouldn't want to live in the lands of my African ancestors.
Hereticalable 4 months ago
@Hereticalable "The people made worse off by slavery were those who were enslaved. Their descendants would have been worse off today if born in Africa instead of America. Put differently, the terrible fate of their ancestors benefitted them." - Dr.Thomas Sowell (a black American).
Hereticalable 4 months ago
@Hereticalable Western Africans on average don’t seem to be fairing much better than those who are in Africa. There are still vast amounts of impoverished black people both in America and the Caribbean islands. Black people around the worldwide seem to be in a general state of suffering and chaos. Had Europe just left Africa alone, black people would’ve been much better off.
infox1000 4 months ago
@infox1000 I have to saying having been to Africa and the Middle East and having a number of African friends who would leave tomorrow and move to the West if given half a chance that I disagree with you. What we consider poor in the West is not the same as poverty in Africa. Poverty aside the West has far more freedom and civil rights too. It seems you're more interesting in rubbishing western civillisation than accepting being black in the West is better generally than in Africa.
Hereticalable 4 months ago
@Hereticalable Poverty in the West is people who are hungry and have poor housing. You see that among black people in Haiti, Jamaica, and even America. I’m sorry, but the living conditions of most black people in the West isn’t anything to brag about.
infox1000 4 months ago
@infox1000 Another thing, saying Africa would be better off if left alone is pointless. What is done is done. And rest assured the West was not meddling in Africa first. Nor is Africa the only place to be exploited. The Arab Muslim Empire tried to exploit Europe for 1000 years and still occupies a lot of previously Christian, European land.
The question is what do we do now moving forward, rather than blaming people for the actions of their distant ancestors, specifically white people.
Hereticalable 4 months ago
@Hereticalable There is moving forward for Africa or for black people until we start becoming self-reliant. History shows that white people have also been opposed to any time of self-sufficiency among black people, both in Africa and the West.
infox1000 4 months ago
@infox1000 *no moving foward
infox1000 4 months ago
@Hereticalable "Britain had never a policy of genocide with its natives"..ask the Gaelic Irish, they almost wiped them out due to racial & religious intolerance, learn history before posting comments online.
The atrocities of the "British" will never be forgotten or forgiven in Ireland.
Never.
gespb32 4 months ago
@gespb32 They not only almost wiped them all out, they did not stint to refer to their extinction (as a good thing and general goal) in precisely those terms.
Najwalaylah 4 months ago in playlist More videos from ColourSergeantBourne
@gespb32 If I want to ask the Gaelic Irish I can speak to my relatives in Cork. The attitude of never forgiven will not change the past. And the Irish are still around in great numbers, have their own country (hopefully unified one day peacefully) and run their own affairs. I'm thankful the British didn't do to the Irish what the Americans did to the Native Americans or I wouldn't be here today. Britain's big mistake domestically was it's unfair Union...that's why I support a British Republic.
Hereticalable 4 months ago
@gespb32 well, it probably should be. We still have a hard time with the yankees burning every college & library here in the South(US) & we are still misrepresented in the press but our northern neighbors only know the lies they've been taught & are good folks, mostly. We can only hope for the world to turn & return to Constitutional freedom peacefully. We lost our war & it was a great tragedy but life goes on & its a waste of time to hate
panthercreek60 3 months ago
@Hereticalable Oh dear Lord, you aren't seriously comparing 1000 years of British Rule to a hundred years of American farmers fighting savages are you??? Methinks the UK needs to start handing out less disingenuous history books. And to think that statement has a plus 14.
SeanP7195 4 months ago in playlist SeanP7195's Favorited Videos
@SeanP7195 Britain has only been a country for 300-400 years so I'm not sure where the 1000 year figure comes from....more historical accuracy from people who have no idea about except that criticism of any nation of country isn't allowed unless it's Britain, America and Germany (ie; only white countries are bad)...The US government put native people on reservations, broke most of the treaties it made with them and committed repeated genocide for goodness sake. The Spanish were even worse...
Hereticalable 4 months ago
@Hereticalable Yes, I agree that its sad that history revisionism only now allows for white nations to be guilty. They often leave out interesting facts such as.....Native tribes were not nature loving, peaceniks, who believed in only the laws of mother Earth. They were in fact, savage, slave trading, mindless barbarians. Today, the United States coddles natives like a child with a cold. I'm not exactly sure what people like you are expecting of the world.
SeanP7195 4 months ago
@SeanP7195 I think a little more attention to facts would be better than the current trend of blame whitey for everything...the fact is other nations have been brutal, wicked and evil too...some more so.
Hereticalable 4 months ago
Comment removed
slideharp1 4 months ago 4
@Hereticalable i agree with u mate!!!
TheCelticmaori 4 months ago
@LouisRickful completely wrong, learn a little bit about history before you make such ill informed comments! Slavery was abolished in Britain in 1772 and the slavery trade outlawed in 1807 with The Slavery Abolition Act coming in 1833. The Battle of Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift took place in 1879. They went to Zulu land as they considered the Zulu kingdom a threat to a british colony called Natal that it shared its border with on the Tugela River. It was a simple case of invading for expansion.
panese 5 months ago
@panese All quite correct, but I should point out that the order to invade did NOT come from London. The Colonial Office was dead set against any expansion, and Sir Bartle Frere annexed Transvaal and invaded Zululand. There would be two major wars in less than a year there as a result.
ImperialistRunningDo 5 months ago
@LouisRickful Atleast if you're going to make idiotic claims have the correct grammar to not make yourself look like an idiot. *Really - *were - *were - *Their - *were *went *were *their *freedom. Congratulations. Also the reason behind people being happy about this battle was due to the fact there were some 100 Brits Vs some 1000 or so Zulus, those are some bad odds for the Brits but they overcame those odds.
WoWHaZ51 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2:58 that munitions crate is one of the reasons Brits lost this war....those munitions crates took forever to open and in a battle against superior numbers you need to restock ammo fast.
Letinsh19 6 months ago
Comment removed
Letinsh19 6 months ago
Comment removed
Letinsh19 6 months ago
This is why the British had an empire..........God Bless The Thin Red Line!
edlasalle 6 months ago
Those British Infantrymen must have had balls of steel to endure this type of warfare.
Demon666Evil 6 months ago
@Demon666Evil mostly welsh thats why
ellis3210 6 months ago
@ellis3210 The regiment defending Rorke's Drift was the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot. There was perhaps 10% of the men at this battle who would call themselves Welsh. Even though their depot was in Brecon, I would bet that most of the men had never set foot in Wales.
ImperialistRunningDo 6 months ago
@Demon666Evil When you have Lee Enfield 303 rifles you dont need "balls of steel" against spears & cow-hide shields.
gespb32 6 months ago
@gespb32 Nobody there had Lee Enfields. Some of the actors in the film had them, but that is an inaccuracy.
ImperialistRunningDo 6 months ago
And most of the guns at this battle belonged to the Zulus, anyway. They didn't ALL show up with spears, you know.
ImperialistRunningDo 6 months ago
@gespb32 would u not be scared if you saw this moving mass of about 4000 charging at you in a zombie state knowing there's no reinforcements no re-spawn have limited ammo and the enemy also had rifles nearly a quarter of British deaths were from gun shots the reasons we make it look easy was because we were trained we had strategy and plans and god on our side so stop hatting on us. unless you and about 150 mates get attacked by 4000 people
underdog111111111111 6 months ago
@underdog111111111111 You had "god" on your side? are you taking the pi*s? They had 19th C.E. military training & weapons on their side! btw who is "we"?!..there can be no comparison between a 19th century trained British unit who were trained with modern rifle & artillery techniques against a native african "force", that has got to be the dumbest statement on you tube ever posted.
gespb32 6 months ago
@underdog111111111111 There WERE reinforcements on the way. Both "D" and "G" companies of the 1st/24th, under Major Henry Spalding.
ImperialistRunningDo 6 months ago
@ImperialistRunningDo the big question is did the basic infantryman know this and the reinforcements didn't even make it before the end of the battle so there a lot of good them... not
underdog111111111111 6 months ago
@underdog111111111111 Maj. Spalding was the commanding officer at Rorke's Drift. He rode off that morning to see where the reinforcements were and to jog them along. As he was leaving, he put Chard in charge, "Not that anything will happen" he said. A poor example of judgement. I would guess that most of the men knew this. Some of them even saw the reinforcements stop in the distance and retreat (now THAT would be discouraging!)
ImperialistRunningDo 6 months ago
@NavySEALxRay This movie is not a joke, and the uploader should remove you're euroclown natured joke.
KelferMookie 7 months ago
imagine just you and eight zulus....and you have a martini henry.......yikes
rotorhd2 7 months ago
This is how you take the fight to the heart of the enemy
MikeBarnesKumite 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ive seen this movie probably 50 times. i love watching all of those worthless african niggers get slaughtered like the filthy nigger pigs that they are.
headhunter0420 7 months ago
@headhunter0420 Go and get a life you intolerant scum, it is people like you that drag the world down..
ryanbell1234 7 months ago
@headhunter0420 Talk like that makes you the nigger
Amarksyhk 7 months ago
@mendaxer Jesus what the fuck are you going on about? Focus for Christ's sake.
jamesdeguerre 7 months ago
I thought the zulus won?
j98765432123 8 months ago
@j98765432123 they won in the 1st movie
11Cheesewaffles 8 months ago
@j98765432123
Battle Winner
Isandlwana Zulus
Rorke's Drift British
Intombe Zulus
Holbane Zulus
Kambula British
Gingindlovu British
Ulundi British
ImperialistRunningDo 8 months ago
This gives me chills.
RWSIee 8 months ago
i wish england was as proud of its identity today as it was then.
jordiejonny 9 months ago 19
@jordiejonny Um...they're a Welsh regiment.
hdbirkmyre 8 months ago in playlist Inspirational
@hdbirkmyre less than half of them are welsh
jordiejonny 8 months ago
@hdbirkmyre They wouldn't become the South Wales Borderers until 2 years after the Anglo-Zulu War was over. Many men at Rorke's Drift were from Wales, but just as many were from the Midlands or London.
ImperialistRunningDo 8 months ago
@ImperialistRunningDo Thanks for speaking truth to ignorance, you remind me of aOeOroberts. All of that nigger this and nigger that, bullshit gets tiresome, keep up the good work and great comments. uSuthu!!
Ngobamakosi 7 months ago
@Ngobamakosi Thank you. I'm getting two compliments in one day.... There's some computer glitch that won't let me log into my a0e0roberts account. YouTube hasn't closed my account, I still get messages etc. I just can't LOG IN. Dratted thing.
While I log in here to keep learning history (I get lots of good book suggestions), I get a guilty pleasure in annoying some of the racists that leave messages here.
ImperialistRunningDo 7 months ago
@jordiejonny
not just England you know.
AustralianPyro 6 months ago
@jordiejonny Its a Welsh Regiment with an English Officer...
Ellis307 6 months ago
@Ellis307 it says on wikipedia that there mostly english but britain would of been a better word to use
jordiejonny 6 months ago
@Ellis307 No it's Not.
slideharp1 6 months ago
@Ellis307 The figures have been posted many times by scholars of the Zulu Wars. I'm not one, but here they are anyway; 49 English, 18 Monmouthshire, 16 Irish, 1 Scots, 14 Welsh, 21 unknown. The regiment were the 2nd Warwickshires/24th of Foot (infantry) You can get all this from the RD website.
slideharp1 6 months ago
@Ellis307 Broomhead, their "English officer" always considered himself Anglo-Irish.
ImperialistRunningDo 5 months ago
Physical proof that Whites > Niggers
Eiraha 9 months ago
@Eiraha So the battle earlier that day at Isandlwana, where the Zulus wiped out a whole British regiment, proves what? that whites < niggers?
From the Crimean War, the British Army was called "lions led by donkeys." Gen. Chelmsford was a huge jackass.
ImperialistRunningDo 9 months ago
@ImperialistRunningDo Nah, that just proves niggers always want what white people have. Whether that be a fort, a field or a job and house paid for by the actual occupant and not the state.
Eiraha 9 months ago
@Eiraha Ha, ha, you are quite the comic. This war was started by an Englishman, Sir Bartle Frere, who wanted what the Zulu had. You could read up on it.
But otherwise, I agree with you. I think most blacks want what I have: an education, a career, a stable home, a car...
ImperialistRunningDo 9 months ago
@ImperialistRunningDo I'm not gona get into racial bullshit, but how could you possibly expect 1 regiment to defeat 10000 zulu, the fact we won this battle is a miracle on it's own
11Cheesewaffles 8 months ago
@11Cheesewaffles I'm not going to get into racial bullshit either. How about some numbers?
Isandlwana, Jan, 22, 1879 -- British forces: 1,200 men, Zulu: 12,000 - 20,000. Result complete rout of the British.
Kambula, March 29 -- British: 2,000, Zulu 20,000. Result: resounding British victory.
The difference is in the leadership. Col Evelyn Wood knew damn well what to expect if he lost; he'd barely escaped with his life the previous day at Hlobane. Kambula was properly dug in and laagered.
ImperialistRunningDo 8 months ago
@11Cheesewaffles Mehlokazulu, son of chief Sihayo and leader of the inGobamakhosi regiment, said this:
"My opinion of the fight at Isandlwana is that if the English had stuck together more than they did, they would have beaten us. As it was they nearly did so, and I believe they owe their defeat to their being so much divided... When we attacked the camp I never thought we could have beaten the English; and we were all astonished at the way they fought." (The Red Soldier, Frank Emery, p. 26)
ImperialistRunningDo 8 months ago
@11Cheesewaffles Simple: Weapondry
knoencowo 5 months ago
if only conflict could be resolved through such peaceful means as a musical display
CentsTwo 9 months ago
that is a bloody chilling sound coming out of a screen, i can only imagine how terrifyin tht horde of zulu's sounded in the flesh
whyowhy345 9 months ago
we Chinese usuto u africaca's ppl
yesdynasty 9 months ago
lol Africa, u mad?
vulnerabledonkey 9 months ago
@Beastyjames23 why so?
ImperialistRunningDo 10 months ago
@ImperialistRunningDo because they kills the zulus, and stole the land, that god give them.....
kemetkush 9 months ago
@kemetkush The land that god gave them? I will not argue theology, but if you're interested in history... God may (or may not) have given that land to the Cele, Buthelezi, Swazi or a dozen other tribes, but He (She/It/Them) did NOT give it to the Zulus. Shaka kaSenzangakhona did, after taking it by force from those tribes..
I will NOT approve of what the British did in 1879, but it was land stolen and NOT god-given. Both the British and Zulu were expanding empires.
ImperialistRunningDo 9 months ago
@ImperialistRunningDo yes god give africa to the africans, and europe to the europeans....
kemetkush 9 months ago
@NavySEALxRay True, considering the RK 'riots' were such a success.
slideharp1 10 months ago
you can argue like little babies all day but the end is the same. we all turn to ash or get eaten by maggots. no ones better than someone else anymore we're entirely fucked.
Hardrada88 10 months ago
@Hardrada88 what if you get frozen?
11Cheesewaffles 8 months ago
bunch of good africans now..........
nwillitts 10 months ago
jimincairns is a retired, uptight idiot who's posted the same comment about Lee-Enfields rifles being used in the movie (presumably to appear knowledgeable on the subject) on All the channels featuring the movie"Zulu". I explained why they were used but he then posted the same 'comment' elsewhere and then everywhere. In his replies he uses phrases like heheheh and Mwahahah. It's sad to see the elderly going to pieces and wanting everyone on the internet to see it. Maybe it's a 'cry for help'.
slideharp1 10 months ago
@slideharp1 He just told me to bite him, instead of his usual "hehehe." If he wants to be bitten, he's going to need a Rottweiler and a LARGE bottle of steak sauce.
ImperialistRunningDo 10 months ago
@ImperialistRunningDo Hmm...then there's the fava beans and bottle of chianti....
slideharp1 10 months ago