Isandlhwana wasn't just a massed charge by the zulus, it was a very co-ordinated flanking attack, and they pulled it off to perfection. Thank goodness for the heroic victory from British soldiers at Rorke's drift, otherwise the Empire's stability may have been in danger if they found that they could beat the British
Adowa for the Italians was an even worse defeat for Europeans against Africans, and the British armies defeat in Singapore during WW@ is its worst ever defeat.
the zulu's did have guns at this point, they even acquired guns from Jim Rourke as a sign of peace long before the battle of Isandlwana, even though the movie "Zulu" depicts the zulu acquiring the guns from dead soldiers at Isandlwana
I don't understand how there a so many wounded at the field hospital. The film seems to show most of the men being killed instantly by spears (the zulus didn't have any guns at this point). Alson why does Durnsford say 'I'Il try to hold the road for Rorkes Drift at 0:40. Rorkes Drift was miles away and in a sense the whole camp would be holding the road for rorkes drift.
The Army fought a minor skirmish a few days earlier at one of the local kraals. Many of the wounded had already been sent back to the hospital at Rorke's Drift! I would guess that most of the men in the hospital had fallen victim to the usual hazards: injury and illness.
Rorke's Drift was about 12 miles away, and if the army was to make an orderly withdrawal someone would have to make a rear-guard effort. The Zulu were already cutting off the retreat.
Gatling gun, not maxim. The maxim hadn't been invented yet. The gatling gun (manned by the Royal Navy, no less) had a habit of jamming at bad moments.
The maxim was used against the Matabele a few years later.
freezer , hardly the empires worst loss, or defeat, the zulus won on the day and that was that,,cant take it away from them, 1200 lost , a shock yes ,did it effect the outcome of the war ,no,
Bugler : Sound The Call !! ... you know, the one signifying "Holy S**T, we're in for it now, aren't we !!". Or .. as the Monty Python Crew might've put their spin to it : "Run Away !! Run Away !!" By this stage of the battle, these poor red-coated raggedy-arsed bastards must've known just how Custer felt at The Horn .. "The livin' costs you plenty, but the dyin's still for free" ...
Conversely, at the Battle of Rorke's Drift, the very same day as The Battle of Isandlwana saw a completely different outcome. In this Battle, the Brits were outnumbered 32-1. The Zulus broke off their attacks aftter loosing some 500 warriors against just British 27 casualties.
The best Zulu leaders were chosen to lead their men into Isandlwana. The leader left on the sidelines, Dabulamanzi kaMpande, disobeyed direct orders from his half-brother the king and attacked Rorke's Drift. All military cohesion was gone by the time they had crossed the river; they were no more than a mob. No "bull's horns" this time.
Dabulamanzi later lead his men into the disaster at Gingindlovu. Shows what difference leadership can bring.
@broadjumper1 I dont think ournumberd is the corrected word
I would have a good chance in a tank with a neutron bomb , against 5000 zulus i dont think numbers have much effect when it is spears against rifles .
@Gommerell - Outnumbered is the correct word. Rifles, while very effective weapons when used correctly, are NOT tanks or Neutron bombs. The main weapons the British used were only Martini-Henry single-shot rifles (which frequently jammed). And even though the British killed thousands more Zulus the Zulus killed British, the war ended the Zulu nation's independence. Since the Zulus used very rudimentary battle tactis, the only hope they had of defeating an enemy force was with sheer numbers.
The description overstates the severeity losses. The Zulus held an advantage between 10-1 to 17-1. The British casualties were 1,300, about 2/3 of their contingent, while the Zulus lost 3,000. The Brits loss was large as a percentage, but hardly the empire's worst military loss ever or for a modern day army. For example, the Battle of the Somme cost the British some 350,000 casualties in 1916, just 37 years later and lost 7,000 men at the Battle of Saratoga, in 1777, some 100 years earlier.
@broadjumper1 Germans didnt have spears at the Somme did they ? or were they outnumbered ?
Cant understand , why British in first world war did not just form a square and let the Germans Attack ?
it was successful tactic against an iron age army , I suppose if they clustered too close together the German Arttilery would of pounded them funny how tactics change based on who your fighting , the Army of a mdern industrial power , or a Iron age Tribe in Africa ?
@Gommerell - The Battle of the Somme OR WWI weren't even remotely like the Zulu Wars. And it's hardly "funny" how tactics change based on who you're fighting, they change based upon necessity and the type of force you have. The Southern tip of Africa is tens of thousands of miles away from Europe.
@Gommerell - Of COURSE it's a major point. You think it was simple to move men, equipment and supplies great distances and not lose any effectiveness in your force? Military history has many examples of a force of overwhelming numbers overrunning smaller defensive positions irrespective of their advantages in firepower. And the UK had many colonial interests in the world at this time which further reduced their military power.
@broadjumper1 Royal NAvy , most powerful in the world ruled the seas for centuries . it may not have been simple to move men , there was a reason for it , Land Aquisition , so it was more a businees venture . If your in business you need to make cost effective decisions . please give examples of similar battles in military history
@Gommerell - All your hyperbole doesn't change the truth. The distance was STILL tens-of-thousands of miles and the journey would have taken weeks. And I'm not going to get into a discussion to allow you to justify colonialism as reasonable for "business ventures." You mean like India? That's a patently absurd statement.
@Gommerell - There have been many battles where a larger force overwhelmed a small, yet better armed force. One that comes to mind was the Battle of Kham Duc in Vietnam where a force of up to 10,000 NVA & VC attacked a force of 1,700 Special Forces, ARVN and Austrialian soliders, killing nearly 300. In spite of having superior airpower, artillery and weapons at their disposal, they hard to evacuate to avoid further lose losses. But what is the point that you're laboring to make?
@Gommerell 1) the Zulu had pleanty of modern rifles at Kambula. The ones they took at Isandlwana.
2) as someone who has fired BOTH single-action and full automatic rifles, I can say machine guns have DISADVANTAGES as well. Vietnam was the first war where the average grunt could flip a swich and go full auto. Before long, sergents had to give orders NOT to unless under extreme circumstances.
@a0e0roberts who trained the zulus to use the guns ? machine guns may have disadvanatdges , but will you say if 10 men with spears are running at you form 500m away on a plain , and you have a machine gun , who has advantadge ?
modern weapons are bound to bestow an advantadge .
Its not my problem that 1300 trained British Soldiers , with single shot rifles and adequate ammunition could not stop a iron age army advancing over an open plain .
@Gommerell Who taught the Zulu to shoot? Most were poorly trained. Dabulamanzi kaMpande, who lead the attack on Rorke's Drift, was trained by John Dunn, the white Zulu chief. The prince was a crack shot, but a lousy general.
Each British soldier had 70 rounds, so divide by 10 men... 7 rounds on full auto each. If they attacked from all sides at once (like Zulu were trained) the outcome would be dodgy. And Zuu would use cover to get close before the final rush.
@Gommerell "It's not my problem..." Who said it WAS? I have loads of respect for the Zulus. If they had more horses like the Swazi did, and more training in the use of rifles they would have been able to keep their independence (for a while, anyway). London had sent Chelmsford orders to stop the war and come to terms. When he did not do so, London sent a replacement.
Modern weapons will not save troops badly led. Look up Intombe. Jeeze. look up Dien Bien Phu.
@broadjumper1 against modern armies or at least equally equipped armies The Zulus inflicted a crushing defeat on the British , armed with sheilds and spears. for all things to be equal the British should of fought with sheilds and spears against them
What ever you can say, the Brits were outnumbered and taken by surprise. The thing is when your guns can only fire single shot, you cant reload fast enough and you cant shhot enough of tem.
The same situation happened at Kambula, except the British knew what they were up against and had dug in. They also made sure the ammunition was readily available. British losses 18 killed, 65 wounded. Over 1,000 Zulu killed.
@Gommerell The Zulus might well have won at Kambula if they had followed their orders. Cetswayo told them NOT to attack the Britsh if they were in a fortified position; instead they were to force the British to attack THEM by surrounding them and starving them out. But the Zulus had handed the British a sound beating at Hlombane the day before, and weren't going to sit around.
50 modern riflemen couldn't beat 1000 similarly lead, trained and ENTRENCHED men with Martini-Henry rifles.
@royalcourtier The Zulus won this battle. A classic Pyrrhic victory, Britain had to commit whatever forces were available to regain face. If the Zulus had just fought a hit-and-run campaign, Whitehall would have put a stop to this war, which they didn't want.
Are you saying that a British Soldier witha rifle is equal to a zulu with a spear seems poor odds , seeing the zulu will be shot before he gets close .
I dareay 3 or 4 will be shot if they have no cover
@Gommerell Um actually we got our revenge for Islandwana our way worsely outnumbered men at Rorkes drift won and then we crushed the Zulus once and for all at Ulundi.
@NorthernerMatty123 fair enough , I dont think numbers come into it when one side has rifles and ammunition , and the other spears . let them both fight with spears and sheilds ? The British fought a bad war , they divided their forces amnd underestimated teh ZULUS , and they paid for that at isandwana
I don't understand what you're saying. The Ethiopians didn't get beat by the British. At the Battle of Adwa in 1896 they beat the tar out of the better-armed Italians and remained independent.
The Zulu warriors were brave men. Courage and determination is what made them fight the better red coats. just the same way it used to happen in other parts of afrika, were it that the weapons used on each sides the same the results would have different.
I don't think the average Zulu was any braver than the average Briton. They won this battle with overwhelming numbers (and good tactics - they were also underestimated because their opponents were deluded by their own racist preconceptions), within days of this battle incredibly outnumbered Britons defeated a Zulu army at Rorke's Drift. The Zulu were as warlike and imperialistic as the British and both sides fought bravely.
It is a bigger test of the mind to face guns in the open when you are armed only with a spear and a shield made of cowhide. The red coats did not need to be brave in order shoot a bullet.
While its true that modern weaponry gives one an edge can you imagine how it must have felt to watch waves and waves of men surging toward you, knowing that no prisoners would be taken (no prisoners generally taken on either side in this war)? And yet they stayed in their ranks and fired away, only retreating when ordered to - at Rorke's Drift they didn't retreat period (139 vs 4-5000). That takes bravery no matter what weapon you are holding. I probably would have legged it or had a breakdown.
But what you also remember is that at Rorkes Drift the defenders were equipped with the British version of the American Gattling gun.Chelmsford refused to take them with him.Also remember that there was a lot of government spin there as well.11 VC`s for 1 action!!! How many at Islandlwana? where there were many acts of heroism.Records also show that the commanders at Rorkes Drift messers Bromhead and Chard were prepared to run and it was commissary Dalton who held them together.
There was no Gattling gun at Rorke's. I think the Gattling gun was with the right (east) wing. The British version of the gun was even more prone to jamming than the original.
I don't think the weapon was very useful. It could put a LOT of bullets in a small target, but was too unwieldly to engage multiple targets.
I am afraid that you are entirely mistaken because the british has NO such gatling type weapon at Rorke's Drift - this is just incorrect and I am not sure why/where you got this idea from, since your mention of the other records (i.e. Dalton's role) is spot on.
There was no gatling gun at Rorke's Drift or at Isandlwana - fact.
In terms of VCs, I agree, but remember RD was a victory - both strategically (of little value) but as you say of massive politcal value.
The 19th Century belief in the superiority of the Europeans, the acquisition through force of arms of vast countries to exploit for their natural resources or hidden wealth (diamonds). The Zulus showed the British that it wasn't going to be easy.
Shadfever: "Boer women and children."Just read that bit in "Washing of the Spears." I'm sure you mean "MEN, women and children." Wiki says that there were 646 men plus 200 helpers.
Sorry, I meant to say a "few hundred Boer men, women and children." I concur with you they had helpers,(servants). The CRUX of the matter is, there were no Boers killed by Zulus. Just for the record, I spent 10-years in the South African Defence Force, and can without bias; honestly say the Boers are the finest soldiers in the world, followed by the Israeli and British soldiers. Btw i'm 100% English. God Save The Queen and best regards to you.
You are wrong..Shaka is a hero.He fought the brits to protect his home.Those brits and welshman would have raped and murdered his people 10 times over like the rest of africa
King Louis XXI: "[Shaka] fought the brits." When did this happen? Shaka SIGNED A TREATY with the Brits. Shaka died in 1828. His half-brother Dingane died in 1840. The half-brother of Shaka and Dingane, Mpande ruled next and died in 1872. Mpande's son, Cetshwayo, was king during the Anglo-Boer war.
You could argue that Shaka was a hero or villain for hours, but Shaka was DEAD 50 years before Isandlwana. This is a FACT.
Kibbles: "have to agree with King Louis on this one." Huh? Are you saying that Shaka was still alive in 1879??? Where did you read this?
CETSHWAYO fought the British. He tried to stop the war, but the British would settle for nothing short of complete surrender. Please study up on this man; you'll find a true hero of Africa.
Ultimately, it was logistics that won through - the British Empire could put an army in the field, bring in reserves, supplies etc. until the battle was won.
The Zulu Empire needed to send its part-time army back to the farms and was limited by the seasons.
"Ultimately, it was logistics that won through" Absolutely. If the Zulu just fought hit-and-run skirmishes, Whitehall would have ended the war and recalled Sir Bartle Frere, the man who started this war. But after Isandlwana, London had to throw whatever resources were available into the fight.
"send its part-time army back to the farms" We'll disagree on this one. Chelmsford began the war in January, during harvest. Zulu men did not farm back then; that was women's work. The army was full time
The Spanish defeated the Americants in the war stop denying it. A 20 million dollar purchase is a victory on the Spanish side and a defeat on the american side. The Spanish controlled the majority of the americas compared to the English and Portuguese who couldn't beat the Spanish either. You sound like a typical dumbass mexican, you suck at spelling and speaking the spanish language. I'm american born of spanish/french descent and I still speak spanish better than you Joto.
fuck shaka,he failed to unite tribes but killed instead and later on faced the wrath of the boers-Dutch.He was brave and stupid...he could have voted for the war againist Iraq...
ikoas. "...greatest Strategeist in the world." yes i agree with you.Hitler too was great "strategeist" what did he gain? Same to Shaka,What did he gain?what did the community gain?- Pride, that brought hatred and disunity among tribes up to date.Shaka turned mad and died a shamefull death.Souls of the innocent troulbled him-including his own daughter.
Mind who your'e calling an idiot.Wisdom dictates that i should reply foul.
Ndume: "faced he wrath of the Boers." I keep hearing this, and I'm not sure if I'm ignorant or what.
It was DINGANE, Shaka's killer, that faced the Boer. I doubt there was ANYONE in the world that could have anticipated how many Voortrekkers would be flooding into his territory. Would Shaka have done better? Probably, but that's speculation. Shaka COULD be diplomatic, when it suited his purposes.
Sunoco: "When you're outnumbered like that..." The British troops were poorly lead at Isandlwana (and at Intombe and at Hlobane). General Wood barely escaped with his life at Hlobane, but the next day at Kambula he was ready and dug in. It was the Zulus' turn to underestimate their foe.
Having a breech-loading rifle isn't much of an advantage. Most of the recruits had problems working the rifles and back in those days every time you fire the rifle would "kick up" a bit so it was very hard to aim, plus the zulu's physical frame and in general most people who live in wildernesses today have much stronger frames so there wasn't much of an advantage to the british side at all. Plus no doubt the poor british people there were scared shitless seeing that force
There is no disgrace moron. The zulus had better generals than the brits. The brits won cause they had better weapons. The zulus won 3 of the 5 battles idiot. Maybe you should do more research than watching youtube videos.
ikoas: explain Rorke's Drift then. Many Zulu were armed with the weapons taken at Ishlawanda. Both sides were equally brave, one was generally better equipped but I agree that the British command was riddled with incompetence. That's what happens in non-warrior societies. Napoleon's generals/marshals were also by and large superior to their British opposites, but the British (with their gold, their navy and their continental allies) still beat them in the end.
Also ikoas - you say the Zulus won 3/5 "battles" and told someone to do their research before expressing an opinion: the Zulus routed much smaller forces than their own at Intombe and Hlobane, were victorious at Ish (10,000+ more Zulus than Brits), were stymied at Eshowe and were defeated at Inyezane, Rorke's (139 vs 4000 minimum), Kambula (despite having 18,000 more troops), Gingindlovu (despite having 5,000 more troops) and Ulundi (almost 10,000 more than the British). So speak the facts.
Its just that I think its bravery on the Zulu's part
to engage an enemy with such a technological advantage..and when you think about it...zulu numbers dont really mean anything when they are faced with volly after volly of gun fire.
Weapons taken at Isandlwana weren't used at Rorke's Drift. The Impi at Rorke's were held in reserve, and wouldn't have had the opportunity to loot the battlefield at Isandlwana. They DID have lots of muskets, though, but these weren't as accurate and didn't have the range that the Martini=Henry did.
No, the Zulus at RD did not have the weapons taken at Isandlwana for the simple reason that they were NOT involved in either the battle or the aftermath (ransacking the camp) but were held in reserve and went straight on towards Natal to plunder. The film is incorrect showing the Martini Henris. Had the Zulus had better weapons, the casualties inflicted on the british would have been more severe. I agree that the british leadership was flawed - though Wellington was not (in a diff era)
Ive heard every thing from the british ammo cases being fuilty to them not knowing how to sight their new martini henrys. Poor leadership led to this disaster.
Lum Otaku: Ohayō gozaimasu! New forensic evidence puts the ammo case theory to rest. The 24th Foot were veterans of other wars in the Cape, they knew how to shoot.
But yes poor leadership, from Chelmsford on down, led to this disaster. Durnford had vague orders, and went wandering off at JUST the wrong time. The line was just stretched too thin.
Yet another display of British heroism. We may not have an empire any more but we have proven to be the best, such a small country taking over nearly all the world!
Rifle Companies in extended line and poor ammunition flow lost this battle. This was the last campaign where screwed down lids were used on ammo boxes. Pulleine was out of his mind not to form a square around the ammo...against an enemy as formidable as the Zulu Impis. Lord Chelmsford completeley and utterley under estimated the ferocity and tactics of the Zulu.
BlackCountryLad: those who underestimated the Zulu ... died. Look at the son of Mapoleon III, Prince Louis. He went out with seven companions on what was no more or less than a sight seeing trip in the middle of the Zulu war. He paid with his life.
"Mapoleon III." Jeeze, I'll never make it as a typist. Anyway, look up the Battle of Intombe. While the British fought bravely at Isandlwana, at Intome the commanding officer was one of the first to fall and the second in command grabbed a horse and FLED. The survivors, under Sergent Booth, made a fighting retreat. Hurrah for NCOs!
the brits lossed here fair and square! outnumbered, outfought and outclassed by the zulu's! the only reason why people try and find excuses for the defeat is beacuse of the inferior technology possesed by the zulu and being beaten by them is a HUGE dent to the british ego. there are no excuses, ammunition was NOT in short supply - this has been debunked by national geographics documentaries. Brits just need to aknowledge that they were simply BEATEN here - thats all!
God your so up your own arse. No one is denying the British lost here. We are simply stating the facts, theres no disgracelosing a battle being outnumbered 16 to 1! Infact the opposite, the very fact that they stood and fought is testiment to the British fighting spirit! God save the queen! lol
if there was no disgrace in losing this battle why did it cause such an uproar in britain - to such an extent that benjamin disraeli's government lossed the election primarily because of it. The british empre was at unbelievable heights at this time - so to lose to a bunch of 'savages' hurt the british very much indeed - no matter what the odds.
Yes it caused uproar because we don't lose! we'd conqoured a quarter of the world then lose to a bunch of Africans sure it looks bad. But in hind sight c'mon - 16 to 1 admit it, no disgrace there mate. Besides we got them back at Rourkes Drift.
Well, they way you said it made them sound like savages. Look up shaka zulu, or the ethiopians, who held of the brits. The zulus had better generals, they would have won if they had enough guns.
No they wouldn't you Brit hater, stop trying to re-write history. We were the best in the world and we wouldn't have been beaten by a bunch of Africans.
Ikoas: they're shooting messegers again. If I put the full facts of the Sand Creek Massacre up here, I'd be accused of being anti-American. While you and I can argue about causes, casualties, results, etc. etc., if I attack your motives, that's bull s***. What am I, a mind reader? But let's say FOR THE SAKE OF AGRUEMENT that you DO hate the British. Does that mean Isandlwana didn't happen?
I'm off to read up on the Anglo-Asante wars. I thought there was only one. Holy Cow.
They would have won if they had enough guns? So your saying the Zulu would have beaten the British empire? The most powerful nation on earth at the time, If the zulu had more guns and were actually trained to properly use them, The british just would have countered this by sending more men. After Isandlwana it became a matter of pride for the british as the british empire could not have been seen to lose a war against native soldiers as it would have severly damaged thier reputation
Sharky: "Would they have won if they had enough guns?" That would depend on how you define "won." They could never have forced the British out of South Africa, not even out of Natal. But England was busy in Afganistan at that time, and the Zulus COULD have made things more expensive that it was worth.
Yes, Isandlwana meant that even those in London who were AGAINST starting a war with the Zulu felt that the Empire's influence would damaged if something weren't done. One of the ironies of war.
Collective noun for Zulu warriors would be "impi." The women were organized into groups, but my books are at home and I can't recall the word. I shall go look it up.
So are you happy the way this country is at present. As said in the movie the "cowardly blacks have more guts than we have boyo" well that is true the cowardly blacks are now taking over this country, killing for revenge, what does britain do about it, they pay them social.
i think this is a "revenge attack" on all the things that has happen to slaves back then? i think so.
and now the europeans is coming to own their own homeland, of course they're going to be piss, as goes for latin america under spain and asia under whoever,
btw..i'm asian and the event of the Dien bien Phu victory is glorious..ill always remember that.
"did you find out anything on your blood thristy orgins?"
What, that the Norsemen were innovative sailors and adventurers who discovered new techniques of shipbuilding and navigation? That they explored new lands and introduced agricultural techniques wherever they went?
I forgot to mention that the piles of empty shells found were in a long line,with each pile around 10 feet apart,and several 100s of yards in front of were the camp was set up. I truley believe had they formed a tight semi square formation close to the ammo and fresh guns. The outcome would have been more like Rorkes Drift!
It wasnt that the soldiers ran out of ammo,but rather their guns would get hot and jamb. The Zulus would lay low and wait for the firing to slow ,and noticing the soldiers would panic and run when the gun jambed. After watching battlefield detectives, they never found more than 34 shells in a pile. So they took some of the old guns and sure enough after repeated firing the guns would jamb after 30-34 shots fired!
Sstdog: I don't know what you mean by machine gun rifles. There were no Gatling guns at Isandlwana, just lever-action Martini-Henry rifles. And what's an early early early morter? 4 a.m., or earlier than that? Morters had been around for a LONG time, but there were only 2 standard field pieces at the battle. Morters wouldn't be as effective as a direct fire weapon with canister shot, anyway.
sstdog: "replying to a comment." Ah. YouTube doesn't handle threads well. Half the messages here don't seem to be attached to anything.
Anyway, Gatling guns WERE used later in the war, but if you've ever seen one in action (I did at a Civil War re-inactment) you'd see that you can't just sweep a hill like you could with a bren. It takes a team of five to operate.
The maxim didn't come around until a few years later, and was used against Matabele.
At 1:19 the Colour Sgt.'s Company dropped a lot of Zulus before retreating. I believe a Zulu recalled from the battle that the British volley fires were having an effect, but shear numbers proved to be too much.
Too much argueing goes on. insults are thrown at each others countries, which is quite offensive. why are there americans and brits argueing over the fact that their country was more important during the war. this is seen all over this website! fact is, they fought together and beat the nazi's and the imperial japanese. it happened and they were allies. get over it and thank each other, don't compete.
How dare you insult the British people. Your nation of 2nd rate bacon & 3rd rate beer-swilling losers would still be speaking German if it was not for the heroic efforts of the British people in WW2.
Would be fun to see how fast you would have run ya gutless lego making twat.
Isandlhwana wasn't just a massed charge by the zulus, it was a very co-ordinated flanking attack, and they pulled it off to perfection. Thank goodness for the heroic victory from British soldiers at Rorke's drift, otherwise the Empire's stability may have been in danger if they found that they could beat the British
TalonMercenary 1 month ago
The Zulus lost all there best soldiers in this battle, even though they were brave it was a prirric victory
jimbo271uk 9 months ago
The ZUlus were not native - they had recently invaded the lands frmo elsewhere in Africa. Look it up!
blueray1969 9 months ago
@ Gommerell
Over british imperial power yes, ...
ozcantheonly1 11 months ago
Adowa for the Italians was an even worse defeat for Europeans against Africans, and the British armies defeat in Singapore during WW@ is its worst ever defeat.
DouglasEdward84 1 year ago
@DouglasEdward84 WW2 typo
DouglasEdward84 1 year ago
Jambo bwana, have a banana!
they nevr really said that it just appealed to my warped sense of humour.
zenoist2 1 year ago
@vonVince Go Europe and go England we kicked your asses in the end the Zulus were slaughtered at Ulundi and we won the war :D
NorthernerMatty123 1 year ago
the zulu's did have guns at this point, they even acquired guns from Jim Rourke as a sign of peace long before the battle of Isandlwana, even though the movie "Zulu" depicts the zulu acquiring the guns from dead soldiers at Isandlwana
1314WhiteRabbit 1 year ago
I don't understand how there a so many wounded at the field hospital. The film seems to show most of the men being killed instantly by spears (the zulus didn't have any guns at this point). Alson why does Durnsford say 'I'Il try to hold the road for Rorkes Drift at 0:40. Rorkes Drift was miles away and in a sense the whole camp would be holding the road for rorkes drift.
moleman9000 2 years ago
The Army fought a minor skirmish a few days earlier at one of the local kraals. Many of the wounded had already been sent back to the hospital at Rorke's Drift! I would guess that most of the men in the hospital had fallen victim to the usual hazards: injury and illness.
Rorke's Drift was about 12 miles away, and if the army was to make an orderly withdrawal someone would have to make a rear-guard effort. The Zulu were already cutting off the retreat.
The Zulus DID have muskets at this point.
a0e0roberts 2 years ago
We got the blighters back at Ulundi with the maxim gun.
moleman9000 2 years ago
Gatling gun, not maxim. The maxim hadn't been invented yet. The gatling gun (manned by the Royal Navy, no less) had a habit of jamming at bad moments.
The maxim was used against the Matabele a few years later.
a0e0roberts 2 years ago
freezer , hardly the empires worst loss, or defeat, the zulus won on the day and that was that,,cant take it away from them, 1200 lost , a shock yes ,did it effect the outcome of the war ,no,
TheMightOfTheEnglish 2 years ago
Bugler : Sound The Call !! ... you know, the one signifying "Holy S**T, we're in for it now, aren't we !!". Or .. as the Monty Python Crew might've put their spin to it : "Run Away !! Run Away !!" By this stage of the battle, these poor red-coated raggedy-arsed bastards must've known just how Custer felt at The Horn .. "The livin' costs you plenty, but the dyin's still for free" ...
colindominy 2 years ago
Conversely, at the Battle of Rorke's Drift, the very same day as The Battle of Isandlwana saw a completely different outcome. In this Battle, the Brits were outnumbered 32-1. The Zulus broke off their attacks aftter loosing some 500 warriors against just British 27 casualties.
broadjumper1 2 years ago
The best Zulu leaders were chosen to lead their men into Isandlwana. The leader left on the sidelines, Dabulamanzi kaMpande, disobeyed direct orders from his half-brother the king and attacked Rorke's Drift. All military cohesion was gone by the time they had crossed the river; they were no more than a mob. No "bull's horns" this time.
Dabulamanzi later lead his men into the disaster at Gingindlovu. Shows what difference leadership can bring.
a0e0roberts 2 years ago
@broadjumper1 I dont think ournumberd is the corrected word
I would have a good chance in a tank with a neutron bomb , against 5000 zulus i dont think numbers have much effect when it is spears against rifles .
Gommerell 1 year ago
@Gommerell - Outnumbered is the correct word. Rifles, while very effective weapons when used correctly, are NOT tanks or Neutron bombs. The main weapons the British used were only Martini-Henry single-shot rifles (which frequently jammed). And even though the British killed thousands more Zulus the Zulus killed British, the war ended the Zulu nation's independence. Since the Zulus used very rudimentary battle tactis, the only hope they had of defeating an enemy force was with sheer numbers.
broadjumper1 1 year ago
The description overstates the severeity losses. The Zulus held an advantage between 10-1 to 17-1. The British casualties were 1,300, about 2/3 of their contingent, while the Zulus lost 3,000. The Brits loss was large as a percentage, but hardly the empire's worst military loss ever or for a modern day army. For example, the Battle of the Somme cost the British some 350,000 casualties in 1916, just 37 years later and lost 7,000 men at the Battle of Saratoga, in 1777, some 100 years earlier.
broadjumper1 2 years ago
@broadjumper1 Germans didnt have spears at the Somme did they ? or were they outnumbered ?
Cant understand , why British in first world war did not just form a square and let the Germans Attack ?
it was successful tactic against an iron age army , I suppose if they clustered too close together the German Arttilery would of pounded them funny how tactics change based on who your fighting , the Army of a mdern industrial power , or a Iron age Tribe in Africa ?
Gommerell 1 year ago
@Gommerell - The Battle of the Somme OR WWI weren't even remotely like the Zulu Wars. And it's hardly "funny" how tactics change based on who you're fighting, they change based upon necessity and the type of force you have. The Southern tip of Africa is tens of thousands of miles away from Europe.
broadjumper1 1 year ago
@broadjumper1 well its is far away true .but I dont see that as being a major point .
a rifle is an advantadge to a spear , as history has shown
Just as a machine gun is an advantadge to a single shot rifle
Gommerell 1 year ago
@Gommerell - Of COURSE it's a major point. You think it was simple to move men, equipment and supplies great distances and not lose any effectiveness in your force? Military history has many examples of a force of overwhelming numbers overrunning smaller defensive positions irrespective of their advantages in firepower. And the UK had many colonial interests in the world at this time which further reduced their military power.
broadjumper1 1 year ago
@broadjumper1 Royal NAvy , most powerful in the world ruled the seas for centuries . it may not have been simple to move men , there was a reason for it , Land Aquisition , so it was more a businees venture . If your in business you need to make cost effective decisions . please give examples of similar battles in military history
or even proportional ones ?
Gommerell 1 year ago
@Gommerell - All your hyperbole doesn't change the truth. The distance was STILL tens-of-thousands of miles and the journey would have taken weeks. And I'm not going to get into a discussion to allow you to justify colonialism as reasonable for "business ventures." You mean like India? That's a patently absurd statement.
broadjumper1 1 year ago
@Gommerell - There have been many battles where a larger force overwhelmed a small, yet better armed force. One that comes to mind was the Battle of Kham Duc in Vietnam where a force of up to 10,000 NVA & VC attacked a force of 1,700 Special Forces, ARVN and Austrialian soliders, killing nearly 300. In spite of having superior airpower, artillery and weapons at their disposal, they hard to evacuate to avoid further lose losses. But what is the point that you're laboring to make?
broadjumper1 1 year ago
@Gommerell 1) the Zulu had pleanty of modern rifles at Kambula. The ones they took at Isandlwana.
2) as someone who has fired BOTH single-action and full automatic rifles, I can say machine guns have DISADVANTAGES as well. Vietnam was the first war where the average grunt could flip a swich and go full auto. Before long, sergents had to give orders NOT to unless under extreme circumstances.
a0e0roberts 1 year ago
@a0e0roberts who trained the zulus to use the guns ? machine guns may have disadvanatdges , but will you say if 10 men with spears are running at you form 500m away on a plain , and you have a machine gun , who has advantadge ?
modern weapons are bound to bestow an advantadge .
Its not my problem that 1300 trained British Soldiers , with single shot rifles and adequate ammunition could not stop a iron age army advancing over an open plain .
Gommerell 1 year ago
@Gommerell Who taught the Zulu to shoot? Most were poorly trained. Dabulamanzi kaMpande, who lead the attack on Rorke's Drift, was trained by John Dunn, the white Zulu chief. The prince was a crack shot, but a lousy general.
Each British soldier had 70 rounds, so divide by 10 men... 7 rounds on full auto each. If they attacked from all sides at once (like Zulu were trained) the outcome would be dodgy. And Zuu would use cover to get close before the final rush.
a0e0roberts 1 year ago
@Gommerell "It's not my problem..." Who said it WAS? I have loads of respect for the Zulus. If they had more horses like the Swazi did, and more training in the use of rifles they would have been able to keep their independence (for a while, anyway). London had sent Chelmsford orders to stop the war and come to terms. When he did not do so, London sent a replacement.
Modern weapons will not save troops badly led. Look up Intombe. Jeeze. look up Dien Bien Phu.
a0e0roberts 1 year ago
@broadjumper1 against modern armies or at least equally equipped armies The Zulus inflicted a crushing defeat on the British , armed with sheilds and spears. for all things to be equal the British should of fought with sheilds and spears against them
Gommerell 1 year ago
What ever you can say, the Brits were outnumbered and taken by surprise. The thing is when your guns can only fire single shot, you cant reload fast enough and you cant shhot enough of tem.
JasperLee23 2 years ago
The same situation happened at Kambula, except the British knew what they were up against and had dug in. They also made sure the ammunition was readily available. British losses 18 killed, 65 wounded. Over 1,000 Zulu killed.
a0e0roberts 2 years ago
@a0e0roberts well that was supposed to happen I would like 50 well armed modern soldiers agaisnt a 1000 of the Brits at Kambala see how they get on ?
Gommerell 1 year ago
@Gommerell The Zulus might well have won at Kambula if they had followed their orders. Cetswayo told them NOT to attack the Britsh if they were in a fortified position; instead they were to force the British to attack THEM by surrounding them and starving them out. But the Zulus had handed the British a sound beating at Hlombane the day before, and weren't going to sit around.
50 modern riflemen couldn't beat 1000 similarly lead, trained and ENTRENCHED men with Martini-Henry rifles.
a0e0roberts 1 year ago
@JasperLee23 Really, how come they could at Rorke's Drift? Or, worse, how did they manage to build an empire with Brown Bess muskets?
Prod1Kh 2 years ago
@JasperLee23 I would of thougfht you would of thought of that before you invaded ?
Gommerell 1 year ago
the British were outnumbered , but they had ammunition and guns , the zulus had spears and shields .
Also the zulus had to run for 5 miles on an open plain to get to the British , they got slaughtered doing so . Then they got their reward at the end .
It was the greatest Victory of any native people over a Imperial power . The Zulus deserve credit for this
Gommerell 2 years ago 11
@Gommerell The Zulus were defeated! Hardly a victory.
royalcourtier 1 year ago
@royalcourtier The Zulus won this battle. A classic Pyrrhic victory, Britain had to commit whatever forces were available to regain face. If the Zulus had just fought a hit-and-run campaign, Whitehall would have put a stop to this war, which they didn't want.
a0e0roberts 1 year ago
@royalcourtier well they won the battle of Isandwana. and it was the only time a modern european army was defeated by spears and sheilds
Gommerell 1 year ago
@Gommerell What about the Battle of Hlobane? Intombe?
a0e0roberts 1 year ago
@a0e0roberts
what about them ?
Are you saying that a British Soldier witha rifle is equal to a zulu with a spear seems poor odds , seeing the zulu will be shot before he gets close .
I dareay 3 or 4 will be shot if they have no cover
Gommerell 1 year ago
@royalcourtier they won at Isandwana and lost the war .
I give them credit where credit is due
Gommerell 1 year ago
@Gommerell Um actually we got our revenge for Islandwana our way worsely outnumbered men at Rorkes drift won and then we crushed the Zulus once and for all at Ulundi.
NorthernerMatty123 1 year ago
@NorthernerMatty123 fair enough , I dont think numbers come into it when one side has rifles and ammunition , and the other spears . let them both fight with spears and sheilds ? The British fought a bad war , they divided their forces amnd underestimated teh ZULUS , and they paid for that at isandwana
Gommerell 1 year ago
I don't understand what you're saying. The Ethiopians didn't get beat by the British. At the Battle of Adwa in 1896 they beat the tar out of the better-armed Italians and remained independent.
a0e0roberts 2 years ago
its was a british loss but hell god bless england xd
paganist123 2 years ago
The Zulu warriors were brave men. Courage and determination is what made them fight the better red coats. just the same way it used to happen in other parts of afrika, were it that the weapons used on each sides the same the results would have different.
handsomeboy490 3 years ago
I don't think the average Zulu was any braver than the average Briton. They won this battle with overwhelming numbers (and good tactics - they were also underestimated because their opponents were deluded by their own racist preconceptions), within days of this battle incredibly outnumbered Britons defeated a Zulu army at Rorke's Drift. The Zulu were as warlike and imperialistic as the British and both sides fought bravely.
brutuscassius1 2 years ago
It is a bigger test of the mind to face guns in the open when you are armed only with a spear and a shield made of cowhide. The red coats did not need to be brave in order shoot a bullet.
handsomeboy490 2 years ago
While its true that modern weaponry gives one an edge can you imagine how it must have felt to watch waves and waves of men surging toward you, knowing that no prisoners would be taken (no prisoners generally taken on either side in this war)? And yet they stayed in their ranks and fired away, only retreating when ordered to - at Rorke's Drift they didn't retreat period (139 vs 4-5000). That takes bravery no matter what weapon you are holding. I probably would have legged it or had a breakdown.
brutuscassius1 2 years ago
its true british spirit to face down an enemy that outnumbers you with the determination to fight and win
fuzzage1 2 years ago
But what you also remember is that at Rorkes Drift the defenders were equipped with the British version of the American Gattling gun.Chelmsford refused to take them with him.Also remember that there was a lot of government spin there as well.11 VC`s for 1 action!!! How many at Islandlwana? where there were many acts of heroism.Records also show that the commanders at Rorkes Drift messers Bromhead and Chard were prepared to run and it was commissary Dalton who held them together.
MrWindies 2 years ago
There was no Gattling gun at Rorke's. I think the Gattling gun was with the right (east) wing. The British version of the gun was even more prone to jamming than the original.
I don't think the weapon was very useful. It could put a LOT of bullets in a small target, but was too unwieldly to engage multiple targets.
a0e0roberts 2 years ago
Indeed a0e0: I couldn't find mention of gatlings either. And I don't remember Michael Caine having one at his disposal!
brutuscassius1 2 years ago
MrWindies
I am afraid that you are entirely mistaken because the british has NO such gatling type weapon at Rorke's Drift - this is just incorrect and I am not sure why/where you got this idea from, since your mention of the other records (i.e. Dalton's role) is spot on.
There was no gatling gun at Rorke's Drift or at Isandlwana - fact.
In terms of VCs, I agree, but remember RD was a victory - both strategically (of little value) but as you say of massive politcal value.
THthefirst 2 years ago
But the fighting was hand to hand and the british were completely outnumbered and faced certain death.
THthefirst 2 years ago
The 19th Century belief in the superiority of the Europeans, the acquisition through force of arms of vast countries to exploit for their natural resources or hidden wealth (diamonds). The Zulus showed the British that it wasn't going to be easy.
hollywoodwerewolf 3 years ago
I like the Monty Python version of this better.
slartibartfast68 3 years ago
TIGERS? In AFRICA?!
a0e0roberts 3 years ago 8
lol
hollywoodwerewolf 3 years ago
lmao
kingbobnjoe 3 years ago
lol....
It's probably escaped from the zoo
polkmn126 3 years ago
And yes I know that Shaka was assassinated by his half-brother (I actually love African history.)
kibbles5724 3 years ago
What about the Battle Of Blood River? a few hundred Boer women and children defeated a force of 10 000 Zulus without one loss of a Boer!!!
SHADFEVER 3 years ago
Shadfever: "Boer women and children."Just read that bit in "Washing of the Spears." I'm sure you mean "MEN, women and children." Wiki says that there were 646 men plus 200 helpers.
But not a good day to be a Zulu, no.
a0e0roberts 3 years ago
Sorry, I meant to say a "few hundred Boer men, women and children." I concur with you they had helpers,(servants). The CRUX of the matter is, there were no Boers killed by Zulus. Just for the record, I spent 10-years in the South African Defence Force, and can without bias; honestly say the Boers are the finest soldiers in the world, followed by the Israeli and British soldiers. Btw i'm 100% English. God Save The Queen and best regards to you.
SHADFEVER 3 years ago
Shadfever: "God Save the Queen." Well, here's one yank that will join you on that one.
The only Boer casualties came when they rode out to counter attack.
But don't get me wrong. Boer women weren't to be messed with. Many of them were porbably as good with a firearm as their menfolk.
a0e0roberts 3 years ago
2wanker
Petecharles999 3 years ago
You are wrong..Shaka is a hero.He fought the brits to protect his home.Those brits and welshman would have raped and murdered his people 10 times over like the rest of africa
KingLouisXXI 3 years ago 2
King Louis XXI: "[Shaka] fought the brits." When did this happen? Shaka SIGNED A TREATY with the Brits. Shaka died in 1828. His half-brother Dingane died in 1840. The half-brother of Shaka and Dingane, Mpande ruled next and died in 1872. Mpande's son, Cetshwayo, was king during the Anglo-Boer war.
You could argue that Shaka was a hero or villain for hours, but Shaka was DEAD 50 years before Isandlwana. This is a FACT.
a0e0roberts 3 years ago
Have to agree with KingLouisXXI on this one.
kibbles5724 3 years ago
Kibbles: "have to agree with King Louis on this one." Huh? Are you saying that Shaka was still alive in 1879??? Where did you read this?
CETSHWAYO fought the British. He tried to stop the war, but the British would settle for nothing short of complete surrender. Please study up on this man; you'll find a true hero of Africa.
a0e0roberts 3 years ago
I'm saying that it was Shaka who reformed Zulu warfare and made the Zulu "empire" possible.
kibbles5724 3 years ago
Ultimately, it was logistics that won through - the British Empire could put an army in the field, bring in reserves, supplies etc. until the battle was won.
The Zulu Empire needed to send its part-time army back to the farms and was limited by the seasons.
anthonythirteen 3 years ago
"Ultimately, it was logistics that won through" Absolutely. If the Zulu just fought hit-and-run skirmishes, Whitehall would have ended the war and recalled Sir Bartle Frere, the man who started this war. But after Isandlwana, London had to throw whatever resources were available into the fight.
"send its part-time army back to the farms" We'll disagree on this one. Chelmsford began the war in January, during harvest. Zulu men did not farm back then; that was women's work. The army was full time
a0e0roberts 3 years ago
Well I would have described it more the fact it was a modern army versus a native one that decided the war.
fokjock 3 years ago
The Spanish defeated the Americants in the war stop denying it. A 20 million dollar purchase is a victory on the Spanish side and a defeat on the american side. The Spanish controlled the majority of the americas compared to the English and Portuguese who couldn't beat the Spanish either. You sound like a typical dumbass mexican, you suck at spelling and speaking the spanish language. I'm american born of spanish/french descent and I still speak spanish better than you Joto.
87mma 2 years ago
Yes a hero thats why he destroyed the other tribes around him. He signed a treaty with the Empire anyway
StokieSwift 2 years ago
fuck shaka,he failed to unite tribes but killed instead and later on faced the wrath of the boers-Dutch.He was brave and stupid...he could have voted for the war againist Iraq...
Ndume08 3 years ago
Your are an idiot. Shaka was one of the greastest strageists in the world
ikoas 3 years ago
ikoas. "...greatest Strategeist in the world." yes i agree with you.Hitler too was great "strategeist" what did he gain? Same to Shaka,What did he gain?what did the community gain?- Pride, that brought hatred and disunity among tribes up to date.Shaka turned mad and died a shamefull death.Souls of the innocent troulbled him-including his own daughter.
Mind who your'e calling an idiot.Wisdom dictates that i should reply foul.
Ndume08 3 years ago
Ndume: "including his [Shaka's] own daughter." I didn't know he had any children. Where did you read this?
a0e0roberts 3 years ago
Ndume: "faced he wrath of the Boers." I keep hearing this, and I'm not sure if I'm ignorant or what.
It was DINGANE, Shaka's killer, that faced the Boer. I doubt there was ANYONE in the world that could have anticipated how many Voortrekkers would be flooding into his territory. Would Shaka have done better? Probably, but that's speculation. Shaka COULD be diplomatic, when it suited his purposes.
a0e0roberts 3 years ago
When you're outnumbered like that it's hard to win. This is kinda like Britians Black Hawk Down...
Sunoco 4 years ago
Sunoco: "When you're outnumbered like that..." The British troops were poorly lead at Isandlwana (and at Intombe and at Hlobane). General Wood barely escaped with his life at Hlobane, but the next day at Kambula he was ready and dug in. It was the Zulus' turn to underestimate their foe.
a0e0roberts 4 years ago
"there's no disgrace" Yes there is.
The Zulus had greater numbers. However, they had no "advantage". There was only one advantage in the whole battlefield: the breech-loading rifle.
And--yet--they lost. What an embarrassment.
aspiringmercenary 4 years ago
Having a breech-loading rifle isn't much of an advantage. Most of the recruits had problems working the rifles and back in those days every time you fire the rifle would "kick up" a bit so it was very hard to aim, plus the zulu's physical frame and in general most people who live in wildernesses today have much stronger frames so there wasn't much of an advantage to the british side at all. Plus no doubt the poor british people there were scared shitless seeing that force
evilhazza 4 years ago
evilhazza: "Having a breech-loading rifle isn't much of an advanage." Over what? A spear? I know which I'm taking to a fight.
Yes, the Martini-Henry kicks, but training fixes that (the Zulu had a lot of trouble with the new rifles, but the British were used to it).
a0e0roberts 4 years ago
There is no disgrace moron. The zulus had better generals than the brits. The brits won cause they had better weapons. The zulus won 3 of the 5 battles idiot. Maybe you should do more research than watching youtube videos.
ikoas 4 years ago
ikoas: explain Rorke's Drift then. Many Zulu were armed with the weapons taken at Ishlawanda. Both sides were equally brave, one was generally better equipped but I agree that the British command was riddled with incompetence. That's what happens in non-warrior societies. Napoleon's generals/marshals were also by and large superior to their British opposites, but the British (with their gold, their navy and their continental allies) still beat them in the end.
brutuscassius1 2 years ago
Also ikoas - you say the Zulus won 3/5 "battles" and told someone to do their research before expressing an opinion: the Zulus routed much smaller forces than their own at Intombe and Hlobane, were victorious at Ish (10,000+ more Zulus than Brits), were stymied at Eshowe and were defeated at Inyezane, Rorke's (139 vs 4000 minimum), Kambula (despite having 18,000 more troops), Gingindlovu (despite having 5,000 more troops) and Ulundi (almost 10,000 more than the British). So speak the facts.
brutuscassius1 2 years ago
Umm...I agree with all those facts.
Its just that I think its bravery on the Zulu's part
to engage an enemy with such a technological advantage..and when you think about it...zulu numbers dont really mean anything when they are faced with volly after volly of gun fire.
ikoas 2 years ago
Weapons taken at Isandlwana weren't used at Rorke's Drift. The Impi at Rorke's were held in reserve, and wouldn't have had the opportunity to loot the battlefield at Isandlwana. They DID have lots of muskets, though, but these weren't as accurate and didn't have the range that the Martini=Henry did.
a0e0roberts 2 years ago
No, the Zulus at RD did not have the weapons taken at Isandlwana for the simple reason that they were NOT involved in either the battle or the aftermath (ransacking the camp) but were held in reserve and went straight on towards Natal to plunder. The film is incorrect showing the Martini Henris. Had the Zulus had better weapons, the casualties inflicted on the british would have been more severe. I agree that the british leadership was flawed - though Wellington was not (in a diff era)
THthefirst 2 years ago
Ive heard every thing from the british ammo cases being fuilty to them not knowing how to sight their new martini henrys. Poor leadership led to this disaster.
Lumotaku 4 years ago
Correct. However they soon woke up.
BlackCountryLad 4 years ago
Lum Otaku: Ohayō gozaimasu! New forensic evidence puts the ammo case theory to rest. The 24th Foot were veterans of other wars in the Cape, they knew how to shoot.
But yes poor leadership, from Chelmsford on down, led to this disaster. Durnford had vague orders, and went wandering off at JUST the wrong time. The line was just stretched too thin.
a0e0roberts 4 years ago
Yet another display of British heroism. We may not have an empire any more but we have proven to be the best, such a small country taking over nearly all the world!
evilhazza 4 years ago
Here, Here!
Youngster37 4 years ago
Rifle Companies in extended line and poor ammunition flow lost this battle. This was the last campaign where screwed down lids were used on ammo boxes. Pulleine was out of his mind not to form a square around the ammo...against an enemy as formidable as the Zulu Impis. Lord Chelmsford completeley and utterley under estimated the ferocity and tactics of the Zulu.
BlackCountryLad 4 years ago
BlackCountryLad: those who underestimated the Zulu ... died. Look at the son of Mapoleon III, Prince Louis. He went out with seven companions on what was no more or less than a sight seeing trip in the middle of the Zulu war. He paid with his life.
a0e0roberts 4 years ago
"Mapoleon III." Jeeze, I'll never make it as a typist. Anyway, look up the Battle of Intombe. While the British fought bravely at Isandlwana, at Intome the commanding officer was one of the first to fall and the second in command grabbed a horse and FLED. The survivors, under Sergent Booth, made a fighting retreat. Hurrah for NCOs!
a0e0roberts 4 years ago
the brits lossed here fair and square! outnumbered, outfought and outclassed by the zulu's! the only reason why people try and find excuses for the defeat is beacuse of the inferior technology possesed by the zulu and being beaten by them is a HUGE dent to the british ego. there are no excuses, ammunition was NOT in short supply - this has been debunked by national geographics documentaries. Brits just need to aknowledge that they were simply BEATEN here - thats all!
shamvara 4 years ago 3
God your so up your own arse. No one is denying the British lost here. We are simply stating the facts, theres no disgracelosing a battle being outnumbered 16 to 1! Infact the opposite, the very fact that they stood and fought is testiment to the British fighting spirit! God save the queen! lol
Youngster37 4 years ago
if there was no disgrace in losing this battle why did it cause such an uproar in britain - to such an extent that benjamin disraeli's government lossed the election primarily because of it. The british empre was at unbelievable heights at this time - so to lose to a bunch of 'savages' hurt the british very much indeed - no matter what the odds.
shamvara 4 years ago
Yes it caused uproar because we don't lose! we'd conqoured a quarter of the world then lose to a bunch of Africans sure it looks bad. But in hind sight c'mon - 16 to 1 admit it, no disgrace there mate. Besides we got them back at Rourkes Drift.
Youngster37 4 years ago
What do you mean "a bunch of africans?"
ikoas 4 years ago
Why whats the collective noun for Africans? A herd of Africans? What would you prefer, whats politically correct now-a-days?
Youngster37 4 years ago
Well, they way you said it made them sound like savages. Look up shaka zulu, or the ethiopians, who held of the brits. The zulus had better generals, they would have won if they had enough guns.
ikoas 4 years ago
No they wouldn't you Brit hater, stop trying to re-write history. We were the best in the world and we wouldn't have been beaten by a bunch of Africans.
Youngster37 4 years ago
DUde, I'm not a brit hater you moron. I'm just stating facts. If you dont beilive me, look it up. They DID have better generals.
ikoas 4 years ago
By what are you judging this on? This is just your bias view, your just a typical American trying to re-write history.
Youngster37 3 years ago
Youngster: "Typical American." Who are you talking to? I'm always happy to quote chapter and verse.
a0e0roberts 3 years ago
Ikoas: "look up Shaka Zulu, or the Ethiopians." Don't forget the Ashanti!
a0e0roberts 3 years ago
That's ASHANTE, as in Anglo-Ashante wars. If I could SPELL, people might take me seriously.
Naaaah.
a0e0roberts 3 years ago
Lol. But I hate how people say I'm a brit hater for stating the facts
ikoas 3 years ago
Ikoas: they're shooting messegers again. If I put the full facts of the Sand Creek Massacre up here, I'd be accused of being anti-American. While you and I can argue about causes, casualties, results, etc. etc., if I attack your motives, that's bull s***. What am I, a mind reader? But let's say FOR THE SAKE OF AGRUEMENT that you DO hate the British. Does that mean Isandlwana didn't happen?
I'm off to read up on the Anglo-Asante wars. I thought there was only one. Holy Cow.
a0e0roberts 3 years ago
Pft. I atcually side with the natives for america also.
ikoas 3 years ago
They would have won if they had enough guns? So your saying the Zulu would have beaten the British empire? The most powerful nation on earth at the time, If the zulu had more guns and were actually trained to properly use them, The british just would have countered this by sending more men. After Isandlwana it became a matter of pride for the british as the british empire could not have been seen to lose a war against native soldiers as it would have severly damaged thier reputation
Sharky756 3 years ago
Sharky: "Would they have won if they had enough guns?" That would depend on how you define "won." They could never have forced the British out of South Africa, not even out of Natal. But England was busy in Afganistan at that time, and the Zulus COULD have made things more expensive that it was worth.
Yes, Isandlwana meant that even those in London who were AGAINST starting a war with the Zulu felt that the Empire's influence would damaged if something weren't done. One of the ironies of war.
a0e0roberts 3 years ago
Collective noun for Zulu warriors would be "impi." The women were organized into groups, but my books are at home and I can't recall the word. I shall go look it up.
a0e0roberts 3 years ago
Mines better. I'll stick with bunch.
Youngster37 3 years ago
Crime rates in Ireland has gone up 50 percent since immigration and africans and asains came over here.
barlano 4 years ago
i would prefer zulu dawn for the accuracy of thr film, unlike zulu which was full of flaws
batugan21 4 years ago
Was Isandlwana sort of a giant ambush?
hammerofmariotos 4 years ago
You could say that. But they knew it was coming, they just underestimated the Zulus.
TheMajesticCow 4 years ago
為什麼不撥完 ASSHOLE
koten1979 4 years ago
i don't prefer zulu because it has more action. i would prefer it depending on the cast of actors, the age of the film itself and the storyline.
ultradumbass 4 years ago
plus the bonus we dont loose
rulebritannia1 4 years ago
which zulu movie is better? the 1972 zulu dawn or the 1964 zulu movie?
ultradumbass 4 years ago 2
Zulu Dawn 1972 is better
nono143430 4 years ago
Zulu 1964 is better because they let us win, why does no one else let us win, we need it because this country is shit at everything, even football.
3856443 4 years ago
i might just say i like the 1964 one more because it is older. i am a big fan of very old movies:)
ultradumbass 4 years ago
So are you happy the way this country is at present. As said in the movie the "cowardly blacks have more guts than we have boyo" well that is true the cowardly blacks are now taking over this country, killing for revenge, what does britain do about it, they pay them social.
3856443 4 years ago
i am canadian not british.
ultradumbass 4 years ago
Sorry about that then you dont have a problem.
3856443 4 years ago
what is that suppose to mean?
ultradumbass 4 years ago
Yeah, because we all know white people NEVER commit crimes.
::sarcasm off::
necrodolly 4 years ago
You Brits can still beat us Yanks at cricket. That's something.
a0e0roberts 4 years ago
i think this is a "revenge attack" on all the things that has happen to slaves back then? i think so.
and now the europeans is coming to own their own homeland, of course they're going to be piss, as goes for latin america under spain and asia under whoever,
btw..i'm asian and the event of the Dien bien Phu victory is glorious..ill always remember that.
ImATiger4487 4 years ago
"i think this is a "revenge attack" on all the things that has happen to slaves back then? i think so."
What the fuck are you talking about? The Zulus used slaves LONG after it was outlawed in Britain.
voiceoftruth2006 4 years ago 2
read EATERS OF THE DEAD
tariqziyad 4 years ago
"read EATERS OF THE DEAD"
I have already read "Eaters of the dead." While not one of Michael Crichton's most well-known NOVELS, I found it very enjoyable.
Now piss off.
voiceoftruth2006 4 years ago
did you find out anything on your blood thristy orgins? or do i have do give you some information on your heritage from EARLIER times? baby eater
tariqziyad 4 years ago
"did you find out anything on your blood thristy orgins?"
What, that the Norsemen were innovative sailors and adventurers who discovered new techniques of shipbuilding and navigation? That they explored new lands and introduced agricultural techniques wherever they went?
voiceoftruth2006 4 years ago
o please voiceoftruth
tariqziyad 4 years ago
I forgot to mention that the piles of empty shells found were in a long line,with each pile around 10 feet apart,and several 100s of yards in front of were the camp was set up. I truley believe had they formed a tight semi square formation close to the ammo and fresh guns. The outcome would have been more like Rorkes Drift!
DEK981967 4 years ago
that would,ve been quite a square -covering cavalry ,7 pounders ,gatlin guns and rocket launchers !
asc2323 4 years ago
It wasnt that the soldiers ran out of ammo,but rather their guns would get hot and jamb. The Zulus would lay low and wait for the firing to slow ,and noticing the soldiers would panic and run when the gun jambed. After watching battlefield detectives, they never found more than 34 shells in a pile. So they took some of the old guns and sure enough after repeated firing the guns would jamb after 30-34 shots fired!
DEK981967 4 years ago
u were right about da lasers n tanks but da brits still got f***ed at isandlwana
asc2323 4 years ago
The British won the Battle of Islwawawa because we had flying tanks with laser guns. This film i very innacurate.
PieBeNice 4 years ago
these men were not cowards hiding behind mealie bags ! they were murderers hiding behind machine guns rifles and artillery!
asc2323 4 years ago
machine gun rifles???????? artilery??? they had 2 cannons and 4 early early early morter cannons,
sstdog 4 years ago
Sstdog: I don't know what you mean by machine gun rifles. There were no Gatling guns at Isandlwana, just lever-action Martini-Henry rifles. And what's an early early early morter? 4 a.m., or earlier than that? Morters had been around for a LONG time, but there were only 2 standard field pieces at the battle. Morters wouldn't be as effective as a direct fire weapon with canister shot, anyway.
a0e0roberts 4 years ago
Im replying to a comment were a person was saying how it was unfair for the zulus because we had machine gun rifles
sstdog 4 years ago
sstdog: "replying to a comment." Ah. YouTube doesn't handle threads well. Half the messages here don't seem to be attached to anything.
Anyway, Gatling guns WERE used later in the war, but if you've ever seen one in action (I did at a Civil War re-inactment) you'd see that you can't just sweep a hill like you could with a bren. It takes a team of five to operate.
The maxim didn't come around until a few years later, and was used against Matabele.
But I think we agree. No machine guns.
a0e0roberts 4 years ago
At 1:19 the Colour Sgt.'s Company dropped a lot of Zulus before retreating. I believe a Zulu recalled from the battle that the British volley fires were having an effect, but shear numbers proved to be too much.
jthofner 4 years ago
Too much argueing goes on. insults are thrown at each others countries, which is quite offensive. why are there americans and brits argueing over the fact that their country was more important during the war. this is seen all over this website! fact is, they fought together and beat the nazi's and the imperial japanese. it happened and they were allies. get over it and thank each other, don't compete.
321ilikecheese 4 years ago 2
I had my fun and will no longer respond to your responses. Have a nice life.
Corso67 4 years ago
Away with you johnny-foreginer, go sulk in loser's corner with the rest of the world.
DoctorScrumpy 4 years ago
Perhaps I should clarify my post below.
A blackshielded regiment was young and unmarried. They usually formed the front of the attacking zulu army.
The white and red shielded regiments were older married men and was used for the reserve.
It was the zulu armys reserve that attacked Rorkes Drift.
Corso67 4 years ago
How dare you insult the British people. Your nation of 2nd rate bacon & 3rd rate beer-swilling losers would still be speaking German if it was not for the heroic efforts of the British people in WW2.
Would be fun to see how fast you would have run ya gutless lego making twat.
DoctorScrumpy 4 years ago 3
How dare you expect me to say anything false to satisfy your national feelings.
Now I dare you to tell me exactly where I wrote anything wrong! Let's see what you got.
My guess is that you will not respond with anything other than silence or insults.
Corso67 4 years ago
Your insults have no basis. Like every other foreigner you just wish you were English, and resent the fact you are not.
DoctorScrumpy 4 years ago 3
corso
"My guess is that you will not respond with anything other than silence or insults."
doctorscrumpy
"Your insults have no basis. Like every other foreigner you just wish you were English, and resent the fact you are not."
I judged you correctly - you got nothing and could not point out any faults from my side.
Yes I admire english history and is a great fan of Winston Churchill and you my friend is a discrace to your nation.
Corso67 4 years ago 3