as far as Shaka defeating the english with guns and cannons 1st invasion from 11january1879 to 4 july 1879 8 major battles 15,000–16,000 English (1,727 killed- 256 wounded) vs 35000 Zulus (6,000+ killed), and Shaka was killed in 1828
Though much remains unknown about Shaka's personal appearance, sources tend to agree he had a strong, muscular body and was not fat. He was of medium height, William Wallace description of the muscular giant said to have been 6 feet tall,
how come every time there is a black warrior fighting a white warrior there is always racism going on and william wallace would of kick some ass no matter what idc if he got cut in his leg people get shot there in still walk he got posioned please rat posion effects kills rats not people (the posion is known for killing rats)
in all reality william wallace got stabbed through his stomach sliced on his calf he would died a while ago, and the poison didn't affect him what??? and also they porbably never would have met, ever
@spidey1242 the poison would have had to have gotten into his mouth or nose in a large enough qaunity to have effect other wise it might have blurred his vision,
my family was really good friends with william wallace. he told my family that after they executed him, to take his heart and bury it in the holy lands, but then we were caught. after they killed him they took his head and stuck it on a sharp pole on the london bridge and thats where the song london bridge is falling down came from.
hae started these battles because the english raped and killed hi wife.
population wise to england is like 5, 000,000 - 100,000,000. its truly was like david and goliath. i think the zulus had it easy. even though the english had the gatling gun.
for all you people dissing the scots as midless rabble. they were one of the most civilised nations in the world up until Edward Longshanks started buying out their clan leaders and noblemen. they had no king. basically no funding for any sort of army. a strong proud nation who once repelled the romans, was destroyed. scotland has allways had this problem of getting trodden on. william wallace, rob roy mccgregor, robert the bruce, bonnie prince charlie. they are the heroes of scotland.
i don't really get what you people are trying to say below. william wallace was good kind man from scotland. he was married, but the english being the pigs that they were, kidnapped his wife and raped her, then killed her. now if you want to piss off a noble scotsman thats how you do it. after this act, wallace went super sayan and the rest is history. he was bravest most ruthless warrior that has ever lived its not whether shaka is black who cares, the lesson here is don't rape women.
this is why europeans raped their people literally and in other ways! Thanks American and European doninance problems for making the world smaller ! Tyrants!
Of course he would win. He'd probably just use the most effective weapon. Hed use the claymore and probably wore a helmet. Stop being stupid people. Shaka Zulu is much later in time than William Wallace but yea is still way behind technologically yes.
Wallaces sword would of cut right through that shitty wooden material with enough cleave action. There would of been no way that zulu warior would be standing.
Not to mention Wallace if i remember ever visited Africa (sarcasm)
Two, both of those cultures had a common thread, they both fought against the english, they both faced adversity against one of the greatest military powers in history. They both demonstrate incredible fighting ability, and both were comparable otherwise they wouldn't of matched them here. I just like Shaka's technique better, because he was a noble, clever king, who unified the entire Zulu nation...you just took it way out of hand though.
@mickeymittermeier william wallace fought more kinda a rebellion an uprising. guerilla warfare. hit and run. light armour. in the battle of stirling they beat the english heavy calvary back by shiltrons (long spears) porcupine like formations, then routed them with their own heavy calvary. william wallace was a genius you can't compare him. scotland was dominated by the terrible english for years before this. they had barely any funding or training. they took it to the english too.
the Scots where some of the greatest warriors the world have ever seen not because they had a their own martial arts ranging from hand to hand combat to a two-handed sword. they are the greatest warriors because they stood up against a tyrant who enslaved them and the Irish. to do what William Wallace did would be like giving a small child a rusty dagger and throwing him in a pit with a grizzly. the Scots echoed freedom across the world!. no way in hell would a fat lip nigger ever beat William!
@mickeymittermeier they were not a band of mindless rabble. William Wallace was a tactical genius he and his men were forced to fight a enemy who were better trained had better equipment and had heavy calvary. he used organized tactics to fight and cripple a enemy that was far better in every aspect then they were. DO NOT TALK SHIT ABOUT THE SCOTS THEY FACED A ENEMY THAT COULD NOT BE DEFEATED THEY FOUGHT FOR FREEDOM THEY DIED FOR FREEDOM. DONT COMPARE THE SCOT TO SOME MOVIE.
Are you kidding?! The Zulu nation devastated the British during the Anglo-Zulu wars in the 1800's, they caused some of the greatest british fatalities ever...they were absolutely incredible warriors for their lack of modern weaponry, the only reason Wallace won here was because he had more advanced weapons... Shaka Zulu should have fucking won...
@mickeymittermeier well said. this whole scenario is retarded. The Zulus were an amazing fighting force, more disciplined than the Scots for sure, and more willing to die for their leader. Whoever made this video is hilarious!
@AvacadoDesperado the scots where highly trained soldiers they even created many forms of martial arts revolving around hand to hand fighting to fighting with a two-handed broad sword. they fought an opponent who were better than them in every aspect of war. it would be like a small child with a rusty dagger fighting a fully grown bear. the Scots fought and died for something they believed in, freedom. there efforts echoed freedom across the world.
@rockstar08876 dude im not racist but you give black people a bad name. i know black guys who are good people but you buddy are just a fat lip nigger who need to keep his fucking mouth shut. white propaganda my ass every day their is some nigger talking shit about white people are talking shit about america. and just one white guy can say nigger and the whole world is shot to hell. black people have it made have fun spending the welfare check hard working white Americans give to you.
@mattp9216 How are you any better? calling a man out for his skin color. We both are animals of different colors like one cats black and anothers white you IDIOT there is no difference shut your fucking white trash mouth, btw im white.
@eddieischill123 for one im not white trash and two theirs is a big difference in niggers and people habe you not watched the news everyday someone is raped mostly white woman or dead and the culprit is a FUCKING NIGGER. im not saying all black people are bad but 90% of black people are niggers. so go fuck yourself!
@mattp9216 have you watched the news? where are you from? not america. 90% of people that rape.. are white. look that up. lol. and 95% of people that moleste children... are white.
@mattp9216 whaaaat ? roflrofl , im a girl idk why you called me this i just looked in my inbox and i saw this wtf? i guess my brother on my youtube accountt, lmao. but w.e
@BabiiGurllxxx Are you fucking stupid? African countries have the highest amount of rape ANYWHERE. An awful lot of black and hispanic girls i know have a horror story involving daddy some uncle etc. for you to say something so fucking ignorant probably means you never watch the news
@40OldeEnglish HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU. MY BROTHER WAS ON MY ACCOUNT I DONT UNDERSTAND HALF OF WHAT YALL ARE SAYING. -_- . AND DONT LISTEN TO MY BROTHER HE IS AN IDIOT
The shame with this show is the way it reduces historical figures whose intelligence, charisma and leadership capabilities were every bit as important as their combat prowess - if not more so - to mute barbaric death-duels.
Testing one type of soldier against another is fair enough, but the duels with named historical figures are nonsense. I watch this for the weapons tests.
lol well for fuck sakes i see comments of ppl saying "he SOULD have won"...does no one here know how to spell SHOULD for fuck sakes i mean its not hard to spell lol
@whoorderedasexybeast lol u spelled wrong too and i can use fuckin stops (periods) and capitals too dumbass i just dont want too i mean its the internet and i still spell correctly, and i know how to spell SHOULD
@HustlerMitch I spelt it wrong for the purposes of a little thing called humour. And NO, you can't even spell correctly (not that grammer or spelling matters at all -because its Youtube!) because in that case of "to", it's spelt "to", not "too". I have to say your hypocracy is amusing me; but still, sort out your own errors before you call other people dumasses.
@HustlerMitch This is my point exactly. You had said someone was retarded or whatever for mispelling should yonks ago. I was the one making the point that its just a minor slip; that its Youtube and that you can type whatever you like, regardless of any fear of being repremanded by a spelling freak like you who doesnt actually know what he's on about. But I guess in a kind of backward way, and obviously without you realising it, you have agreed with me.
Wallace's attack was more devastating. Shaka was definitely a great warrior, but too much of his combat was frilly. Traditionally, European combat was much more straightforward. Speed is very deadly, but not if half of it was wasted.
lolllllllllllll this show is stupid it's cool how they show the weapons but its so staged and whack like this very episode the zulus throwing stick thing beats wallaces chain and ball like come on seriously........ a stick LOL
@Death2Zionists The "stick" was a was club specifically made to be thrown at an enemy. It was given it edge because it had longer range, and was lighter, making it easier to thrown in a fight.
Okay, I have to ask the obvious question here... Why the HELL would Shaka Zulu be running through 3 continents and over several bodies of water for God knows how many days just to fight William Wallace?
What would really happen, Wallace would stand there saying "How in the HELL did you even hear of me?"
The whole portrayal of William Wallace in this is nonsense - he was a lowlander who dressed and fought in a typical medieval fashion (no less deadly for that though). And no Scot would wield a double-handed claymore for a couple of centuries after him. Folklore also has it that he was an excellent bowman.
And it takes a racist frame of mind to automatically call the outcome racist.
@tostedcheeseman - if you say so (and my couple of centuries was hastily written and admittedly off) but that's a 16th century claymore they're putting in his hands. And the so-called 'Wallace Sword' is widely believed to be no such thing.
@Classensify oh i no the wallace sword is bogus... the blade might b real mayb. but as seeing information on the claymore style sword that scotland had in that time period is scarce it wld b hard to have an accurate recreation to do the tests with so they did the next best thing
we will never know who would win hand to hand i wish it had been that way it would of been better that way because if you lose hand to hand there is no excuse. and it just seems more honorable and manly. however, in reality the british used guns and cannons on the zulu and still lost three times. which would make people naturally suspicious but anyways i love william wallace who doesn't like braveheart he fought the english too. would braveheart lose to a longshank one on one? i don't think so.
@randomballa do you know what it means to take a internal shot with a spear getting your legs blown off is nothing compared to getting stabbed in the organs its to fatal
@Remedave1 the spear didn't look like it hhit any vitals. maybie a kidney and his intestine. he would have died later from bleeding and/or infection, but lived long enough to kill Shaka. a true warrior shouldn't die from a stab immediately, and that spear only went about 2-3 inches in
this is pure bullshit as usual the white man wins in his fantasy world. Number one shaka would have never ran from this man. Let me portray shaka in this I would show you what shaka really would have done there would be a real murder not a fake one. When shaka was leading the zulus the british who had guns couldnt stop the zulus so how in the hell could this man beat shaka in close combat shaka created close combat
@emncaity of course not but the way deadliest warrior depicted shaka's attitude fighting style etc.... is no where near on point. Shaka was beyond this. A spear shot to the gut and he lives no way. IRON CAN DESTROY IRON
@Remedave1 and as usual somebody complains because a black man died. the fact that he's black doesn't mean this is racist. william was simply the better fighter
@randomballa william wasnt a better fighter.... hand to hand combat william would lose Im certian of that. He was better equiped but I dont think hes a better fighter.
@Remedave1 : agreed.. Im amazed that the deadliest warrior show didnt even mention that the british who had guns and cannons and shit like that still lost to shaka...
@DXSXDXSXD this is bullshit shaka zulu was by far more deadly tougher intelligent, and faster no tall linky scotish man would stand a chance against an angry black man with speed, strategy, and itelligence. Also shaka would have never an against this man
William wallace: the scottish rebal who bring england to its knees. Shaka zulu: the affrican war cheif who lead his small tribe into a army. They tested wallaces wepons. Cyalmore tack Dirk Ball and chain tested Zulu weapons. Ikwa spear Iwisa club Spit of poison zulu axe
@BlackKingish How is it racist? It was just data and weapons tests and William Wallace's were better. So stop saying if a black warrior goes on this show to fight that they sould win. Remember the Zande Warrior and the Somali Pirate? They both WON! So stop whining about 1 loss and stop posting stupid crap like that.
lol the outcome of this fight didnt suprise me one bit, but the amount of time it took for wallace to slay shaka did suprise me. In reality, he woulda chopped that skinny black guy in half in the first 10 seconds.
He developed a fighting style that was unmatched in South Africa which lead years later to the Zulus fighting an even defeating a British army who had guns and cannons.
He made his soldiers run everday so they can be better warriors and cross much ground.
So i dont see him loseing to wallace but the one thing wallace has is a big sword but speed and strength he do not have.
@blacklion105 There's a reason, Romans built two walls the width of Scotland. There's a reason Napolean fell to Scottish guards. There's a reason the Netherlands hired Scots to fight the Spanish and there's a reason why brigades the world over employ Scottish themes. And there's a reason the SAS is the model for all elite fighting units in the world, and there's a reason it's full of Scots. But yeah, maybe Zulu could have beat Wallace, then again...
@NilDesperandum777 You cant even find anybody saying what William Wallace was built like but Shaka they have people telling you he was 6'3 muscle ran miles...was in amazing shape and he designed a fighting system that crushed a couple of African clans and atleast once a British army in a battle. To me that tells you what the man was about beyond color he was amazing thats it.
@blacklion105 "To me that tells you what the man was about beyond color he was amazing thats it. " Ahh, nobody said anything about the colour of either man. And the only person in this conversation that identifies themselves by colour is you. So, you might want to check your vision. And as for beating British armies, uhm...Wallace actually invaded England and but for the betrayal by Scottish "lords" might have done what Robert the Bruce would do a little later.
@NilDesperandum777 And if you wanna get real deep the Scots did not invade Africa until they had something called the gun LOL. No body with swords even wanted to go that deep into Africa thats why the called people Savages because the was fierce animale like...which really meant you dont wanna go in their without having your X's and O's dot'd out.
@blacklion105 "And if you wanna get real deep the Scots did not invade Africa until they had something called the gun LOL." If you want to get ACCURATE, Scotland never invaded any country except for England. Although if you consider David Livingstone - a Scot - an invasion, then so be it. But no African worth their salt would consider him a conquerer would they? As for "savages", why didnt Europe or anyone else take on African mercenaries or themes as their own as they have with Scots? Think.
@NilDesperandum777 Plus truthfully The Brits used more guns against their kind in battle once they developed it they used it against the scots the irish and anybody else they could smash who carried a sword at the time...youd do the same...why fight Bruce lee when i can shoot him LOL.
@blacklion105 "youd do the same...why fight Bruce lee when i can shoot him LOL" I see, so it's funny if used against Scots and Irish, but it's just "cowardice" if used against Zulus? Sorry, man, doesnt work that way, and yeah, sadly, that's how military works, efficiency over theatricality and bravery. But the point of pointing out Scotland's military history as a people, is to convey to you, that Scots have been fighting forever and as warriors, are probably peerless, even to this day. SAS.
@blacklion105 What makes you think Zulu was stronger or faster? Ever seen Highland "games"? Scots are a strong people. Strong enough to clear out Romans, Vikings, the English and weild claymores with about twenty other pieces of weaponry on them. And all in a running, constant advancement. And in terms of bravery and ferocity, well...Most historians would place Picts/Scots at the top of the class. It's a stereotype for a reason. Didnt Idi Amin have his guards where kilts? Do you wonder why?
@NilDesperandum777 Not saying they suck....but ever time has its greatest warriors do you agree? thats like saying your scotish Soldiers who protected Idi Amin would be Navy Seals....i believe that would never happen catch my point this is why you have warriors that never meet they from different time periods and to me its Shaka Zulu the man vs William wallace the man...and Shaka is stronger plain and simple...now as far as the zulu vs the scots then they need to do a war version of Deadliest.
@blacklion105 1/2 - Well of course every era has it's greatest warriors. Your point about Scots guards and Navy Seals makes no sense in that, the SAS, the elite fighting force from which all other fighting forces learned their trade was founded by a Scot, Sir Archibald David Sterling, and at one time was and may still, be comprised of 70- 80% Scots - draw the logical conclusion. Concerning Zulu's strength vs Wallace's, how precisely can you say Shaka is the stronger, plain and simple? (Cont.)
@NilDesperandum777 Well the Navy seals tactics our a combination of all people of war....that's why they the best. If they ever did a deadliest warriors with navy seals they'll win Majority of the battles if not all. Now as far as Shaka Zulu vs Wallace man on man ima go with Shaka.....now i would love to see the scots vs the zulus to see the outcome but being that the Brits fought them with guns and lost atleast one major battle that says alot about the Zulu's.,
@blacklion105 Again, I don't know what you're basing your conclusion that the Navy Seals are the pinnacle of modern day elite fighting forces. It's widely held and maintained that the SAS of Great Britain is the premier unit. The SAS was founded by a Scot, Sir Archibald David Sterling in which Scots have always been prominently present. And a word on the Navy Seals...Another Scot, John Paul Jones, founded the US Navy. So...As much as you feel you're right, you couldnt be more incorrect.
@blacklion105 2/2 I ask this for a number of reasons, chief of which is the fact that just to battle, Scots used heavy weaponry like the claymore, plus numerous knives,axes, their shield, light armour,etc...And by all accounts, Scots were very quick fighters, so they were obviously to a man very strong and fast with near endless endurance. As a people, Scots have always been in demand all over the world in situations of war and combat. Africans on the other hand...not so much.
@NilDesperandum777 Plus something that you need to realize nobody ever went into middle or south Africa until they had a gun thats a historical fact when the Romans tried they lost their armys and never did it again....so not until people had the cannon and gun did they even go that deep into the jungle. So when you see battles with Africans it was with the gun and not the sword vs the Spear and cowhide shield.
@blacklion105 Nobody went into the middle of Africa because it's terrain was problematic. There simply wasn't enough incentive to move into the contient. It wasn't that the gun allowed men into Africa, technology did. You can go with Shaka Zulu all you like, in this instance in which man on man battles were played out in scenario based on weaponry of each time and man, Wallace was the decisive victor. But with a name like "blacklion" I guess asking for unbiased opinion is a bit of a stretch.
@NilDesperandum777 Why is my opion stretched beacause my name Blacklion? im lost you must be a scot if you want the scots to win so bad...ill put it like this if it was richard the lion heart vs shaka zulu id go with Richard why? because their is accounts of him doing battle upfront and close killing many men with his sword...just like Shaka...William i cant lie not to sure about and im not about to follow the movie mel gibson did...i need facts. catch what im saying?
@blacklion105 In terms of knowing, none of us know. All we can do is speculate. The show relies on information and the computer can't be biased. Certainly I'm impressed with the history of King Shaka, but the history of Wallace against the most oppressive regime under his own country is quite a history as well. Suffice it to say, it would be a good one.
@blacklion105 Shaka Zulu was only 6'3? lmao William Wallace's was a giant of a man, his sword was 5'4 alone, and so its user would have needed to be both tall and strong to use it properly in battle.
@blacklion105 : im sorry I dont see shaka losing either... I think most people underestimate anything from Africa... Yes I do believe that but some will call me racist because I said tyhat.....
@Loadfaster Yeah thats what im saying Shaka created his own fighting system one that defeated an Army with guns years later....im saying you have to respect a man that creates his own fighting system and it works.
@blacklion105 back then guns sucked. they had to reload every second and they had no armor or defence. if the english attacked with armored knights the zulu wouldnt've standed a chance.
@blacklion105 lol!! are you saying the zuluz couldv taken on the roman empire? hah! haha! they probably didnt take africa because they couldntv cared less. thats like saying "well because the U.S. military CAN nuke koria but wont means that koria is obviously superior". the romans had tactics, armor, shields. the celts faught the romans and lost alot and i bet even the celts are better then the zulu. just face the facts. a bunch of tribal africans with sticks cant beat the sword and shield.
@blacklion105 yeah they beat guys with guns that had to reload once after every fire. of course the're gonna win cause once they catch upto the guys with guns the englishmen will be trying to reload and then getting a spear to their face.
@nior000 Well I guess that means you agree with me. So do you have something against Shaka with this match up? They have him losing I just don't believe he would have lost to this man maybe someone else like Richard the Lion heart who had a few kills under his belt. I think a lot of people think about Brave heart an think this guy wallace was an amazing warrior but he never created a fighting system like Shaka....also Shaka was said to be 6'3 pure muscle this written by Brit soldiers.
@blacklion105 i believe shaka was an amazing warrior i just dont think he had the weapons and armor to beat most warriors. i believe shaka zulu could beat a gladiator or a celt but you have to remember that william wallace was a strategist and didnt just use all force. he planned his fights out, that and he had a realy realy huge sword.
i'll be getting a claymore soon enough :D
tradman662 4 days ago
SO CLOSE!
ninjamaster832 1 week ago
as far as Shaka defeating the english with guns and cannons 1st invasion from 11january1879 to 4 july 1879 8 major battles 15,000–16,000 English (1,727 killed- 256 wounded) vs 35000 Zulus (6,000+ killed), and Shaka was killed in 1828
wolverine2245 1 month ago
Comment removed
wolverine2245 1 month ago
Though much remains unknown about Shaka's personal appearance, sources tend to agree he had a strong, muscular body and was not fat. He was of medium height, William Wallace description of the muscular giant said to have been 6 feet tall,
wolverine2245 1 month ago
@infox1000 only after the Romans had over extended themselves
wolverine2245 1 month ago
0:31 FUS RO DA
Noobpatty 1 month ago
@infox1000 and the romans had more than just armor and weapons.....but you know, an experienced military counts.
nior000 4 months ago
Shaka Zulu is the superior warrior. No Question.
But even he can't compete in a grass skirt and a spear.
TheLaddysaur 7 months ago
how come every time there is a black warrior fighting a white warrior there is always racism going on and william wallace would of kick some ass no matter what idc if he got cut in his leg people get shot there in still walk he got posioned please rat posion effects kills rats not people (the posion is known for killing rats)
21bigez 7 months ago
in all reality william wallace got stabbed through his stomach sliced on his calf he would died a while ago, and the poison didn't affect him what??? and also they porbably never would have met, ever
spidey1242 8 months ago
@spidey1242 the poison would have had to have gotten into his mouth or nose in a large enough qaunity to have effect other wise it might have blurred his vision,
wolverine2245 1 month ago
another example that the scottish are the best
mcglynn670 8 months ago
Contrary to belief wallace wore a alot of armor and was big as hell he could take a team of zulus Black folks hate the white boy wins
40OldeEnglish 9 months ago
Hey this isnt Mel Gibson.
billvw1974 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
William Wallace consumed Shaka Zulu with fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse.
cole186669 11 months ago
$H@K@ ZULU W0ULD B3@T D@T CR@CK@ @55 SH@K@ W@5 FRUM M0 M0D3RN T1M35 D@N D@T B1TCH D15 5H0W 15 R@515 FUCK D15 L@M3 @55 5H1T M@YN
8B4LL1NN1G4ZZ247 1 year ago
@8B4LL1NN1G4ZZ247 Sorry, i'm pretty sure you weren't speaking English.
goldenchicken243 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
my family was really good friends with william wallace. he told my family that after they executed him, to take his heart and bury it in the holy lands, but then we were caught. after they killed him they took his head and stuck it on a sharp pole on the london bridge and thats where the song london bridge is falling down came from.
hae started these battles because the english raped and killed hi wife.
ledzepp321 1 year ago
@ledzepp321 what was her name?
jimbobhk2009 8 months ago
population wise to england is like 5, 000,000 - 100,000,000. its truly was like david and goliath. i think the zulus had it easy. even though the english had the gatling gun.
ThePoorhillbilly 1 year ago
for all you people dissing the scots as midless rabble. they were one of the most civilised nations in the world up until Edward Longshanks started buying out their clan leaders and noblemen. they had no king. basically no funding for any sort of army. a strong proud nation who once repelled the romans, was destroyed. scotland has allways had this problem of getting trodden on. william wallace, rob roy mccgregor, robert the bruce, bonnie prince charlie. they are the heroes of scotland.
ThePoorhillbilly 1 year ago
i don't really get what you people are trying to say below. william wallace was good kind man from scotland. he was married, but the english being the pigs that they were, kidnapped his wife and raped her, then killed her. now if you want to piss off a noble scotsman thats how you do it. after this act, wallace went super sayan and the rest is history. he was bravest most ruthless warrior that has ever lived its not whether shaka is black who cares, the lesson here is don't rape women.
ThePoorhillbilly 1 year ago
this is why europeans raped their people literally and in other ways! Thanks American and European doninance problems for making the world smaller ! Tyrants!
R3DMAFIYA1988 1 year ago
Comment removed
R3DMAFIYA1988 1 year ago
Of course he would win. He'd probably just use the most effective weapon. Hed use the claymore and probably wore a helmet. Stop being stupid people. Shaka Zulu is much later in time than William Wallace but yea is still way behind technologically yes.
R3DMAFIYA1988 1 year ago
Referring to the Anglo-Zulu war of 1879, it was between the British Empire and the Zulu Kingdom
mickeymittermeier 1 year ago
Wallaces sword would of cut right through that shitty wooden material with enough cleave action. There would of been no way that zulu warior would be standing.
Not to mention Wallace if i remember ever visited Africa (sarcasm)
wishwizard 1 year ago
really? One youre a disgusting racist.
Two, both of those cultures had a common thread, they both fought against the english, they both faced adversity against one of the greatest military powers in history. They both demonstrate incredible fighting ability, and both were comparable otherwise they wouldn't of matched them here. I just like Shaka's technique better, because he was a noble, clever king, who unified the entire Zulu nation...you just took it way out of hand though.
mickeymittermeier 1 year ago
@mickeymittermeier did'nt the Zulus fight the Dutch, not the English?
wolfintheband 1 year ago
Comment removed
voltaire812 1 year ago
Comment removed
voltaire812 1 year ago
@mickeymittermeier william wallace fought more kinda a rebellion an uprising. guerilla warfare. hit and run. light armour. in the battle of stirling they beat the english heavy calvary back by shiltrons (long spears) porcupine like formations, then routed them with their own heavy calvary. william wallace was a genius you can't compare him. scotland was dominated by the terrible english for years before this. they had barely any funding or training. they took it to the english too.
ThePoorhillbilly 1 year ago
the Scots where some of the greatest warriors the world have ever seen not because they had a their own martial arts ranging from hand to hand combat to a two-handed sword. they are the greatest warriors because they stood up against a tyrant who enslaved them and the Irish. to do what William Wallace did would be like giving a small child a rusty dagger and throwing him in a pit with a grizzly. the Scots echoed freedom across the world!. no way in hell would a fat lip nigger ever beat William!
mattp9216 1 year ago
@mattp9216 scotland and ireland had some great allies together........
ranbrent 1 year ago
incredible, organized fighting force, unlike the random band of scots, that everyone loves because of Braveheart... no disrespect to braveheart...
mickeymittermeier 1 year ago
@mickeymittermeier they were not a band of mindless rabble. William Wallace was a tactical genius he and his men were forced to fight a enemy who were better trained had better equipment and had heavy calvary. he used organized tactics to fight and cripple a enemy that was far better in every aspect then they were. DO NOT TALK SHIT ABOUT THE SCOTS THEY FACED A ENEMY THAT COULD NOT BE DEFEATED THEY FOUGHT FOR FREEDOM THEY DIED FOR FREEDOM. DONT COMPARE THE SCOT TO SOME MOVIE.
mattp9216 1 year ago
yea william wallace!
ironbrigade97 1 year ago
thumbs up if you thought when shaka zulu stabbed wallace u were like damn, but when he stabbed shaka ur were like OMG EPIC COMEBACK xD
huytiopful 1 year ago
William wallace all the way.
ladiesman53100 1 year ago
Are you kidding?! The Zulu nation devastated the British during the Anglo-Zulu wars in the 1800's, they caused some of the greatest british fatalities ever...they were absolutely incredible warriors for their lack of modern weaponry, the only reason Wallace won here was because he had more advanced weapons... Shaka Zulu should have fucking won...
mickeymittermeier 1 year ago
@mickeymittermeier You do realize William Wallace is Scottish right? And BTW Scots had a will to fight unlike dumbass Zulus or whatever, piss off
notredame1616 1 year ago
@mickeymittermeier well said. this whole scenario is retarded. The Zulus were an amazing fighting force, more disciplined than the Scots for sure, and more willing to die for their leader. Whoever made this video is hilarious!
AvacadoDesperado 1 year ago
@AvacadoDesperado the scots where highly trained soldiers they even created many forms of martial arts revolving around hand to hand fighting to fighting with a two-handed broad sword. they fought an opponent who were better than them in every aspect of war. it would be like a small child with a rusty dagger fighting a fully grown bear. the Scots fought and died for something they believed in, freedom. there efforts echoed freedom across the world.
mattp9216 1 year ago
of course the white guys gonna win. please chaka zulu all day.
newpanther93 1 year ago
@newpanther93 YEAHHHHH! ITS MORE EVIL WHITE PROPAGANDA! ITS ALL WHITE LIES!! RIGHT MY BLACK BROTHER?? BLACK PANTHERS STAND TALL! lol gtfo
rockstar08876 1 year ago
@rockstar08876 yep Black Power! u nazi
newpanther93 1 year ago
@rockstar08876 dude im not racist but you give black people a bad name. i know black guys who are good people but you buddy are just a fat lip nigger who need to keep his fucking mouth shut. white propaganda my ass every day their is some nigger talking shit about white people are talking shit about america. and just one white guy can say nigger and the whole world is shot to hell. black people have it made have fun spending the welfare check hard working white Americans give to you.
mattp9216 1 year ago
@mattp9216 dude im white! I was just mocking that stupid black panther.
rockstar08876 1 year ago
@rockstar08876 0.o my bad. lol
mattp9216 1 year ago
@mattp9216 How are you any better? calling a man out for his skin color. We both are animals of different colors like one cats black and anothers white you IDIOT there is no difference shut your fucking white trash mouth, btw im white.
eddieischill123 1 year ago
@eddieischill123 for one im not white trash and two theirs is a big difference in niggers and people habe you not watched the news everyday someone is raped mostly white woman or dead and the culprit is a FUCKING NIGGER. im not saying all black people are bad but 90% of black people are niggers. so go fuck yourself!
mattp9216 1 year ago
@mattp9216 have you watched the news? where are you from? not america. 90% of people that rape.. are white. look that up. lol. and 95% of people that moleste children... are white.
BabiiGurllxxx 11 months ago
@BabiiGurllxxx why you fat lip kinky haired nigger you clearly live in a delusional fantasy world.
mattp9216 11 months ago
@mattp9216 whaaaat ? roflrofl , im a girl idk why you called me this i just looked in my inbox and i saw this wtf? i guess my brother on my youtube accountt, lmao. but w.e
BabiiGurllxxx 10 months ago
@BabiiGurllxxx and 100% of people that spell molest wrong are stupid.
Fyrebahl 10 months ago
@Fyrebahl ?.?
BabiiGurllxxx 10 months ago
@Fyrebahl or not molesters lol
40OldeEnglish 9 months ago
@BabiiGurllxxx Are you fucking stupid? African countries have the highest amount of rape ANYWHERE. An awful lot of black and hispanic girls i know have a horror story involving daddy some uncle etc. for you to say something so fucking ignorant probably means you never watch the news
40OldeEnglish 9 months ago
@40OldeEnglish HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU. MY BROTHER WAS ON MY ACCOUNT I DONT UNDERSTAND HALF OF WHAT YALL ARE SAYING. -_-
BabiiGurllxxx 8 months ago
@40OldeEnglish HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU. MY BROTHER WAS ON MY ACCOUNT I DONT UNDERSTAND HALF OF WHAT YALL ARE SAYING. -_- . AND DONT LISTEN TO MY BROTHER HE IS AN IDIOT
BabiiGurllxxx 8 months ago
@BabiiGurllxxx i dont mean to offend you just get your brother his own account if he wants to act stupid
40OldeEnglish 8 months ago
Fuck that battle...Shaka Zulu should of won
mickeymittermeier 1 year ago
@mickeymittermeier that guy dosent have shit on Wallace, if it was army on army, Shaka and his men would be crushed like bugs
HunterKiller762 1 year ago
William Wallace was an AngloNorman knight, wtf is this barbarian with face paint doing?
whoorderedasexybeast 1 year ago
My teacher sometimes calls on my best friend william. then from out of no where he just sais william wallace. lawl
Westshark899 1 year ago
HA ha ha ha ha, Wallace pwns all!
cameranzo1 1 year ago
They should have got Mel Gibson
CodytheHun123 1 year ago
The shame with this show is the way it reduces historical figures whose intelligence, charisma and leadership capabilities were every bit as important as their combat prowess - if not more so - to mute barbaric death-duels.
Testing one type of soldier against another is fair enough, but the duels with named historical figures are nonsense. I watch this for the weapons tests.
WandersNowherre 1 year ago
@WandersNowherre weapon testsare not accurate either its a show for entertainment thats about it
crashdummy40 1 year ago
lol well for fuck sakes i see comments of ppl saying "he SOULD have won"...does no one here know how to spell SHOULD for fuck sakes i mean its not hard to spell lol
HustlerMitch 1 year ago
@HustlerMitch oh thats pretty cever noicing that spelling mistake. Wish i was that intelligent. Nice use of capitals and full stops btw!
whoorderedasexybeast 1 year ago
@whoorderedasexybeast lol u spelled wrong too and i can use fuckin stops (periods) and capitals too dumbass i just dont want too i mean its the internet and i still spell correctly, and i know how to spell SHOULD
HustlerMitch 1 year ago
@HustlerMitch I spelt it wrong for the purposes of a little thing called humour. And NO, you can't even spell correctly (not that grammer or spelling matters at all -because its Youtube!) because in that case of "to", it's spelt "to", not "too". I have to say your hypocracy is amusing me; but still, sort out your own errors before you call other people dumasses.
=Served.
whoorderedasexybeast 1 year ago
@whoorderedasexybeast ever hear of a miss type?
and sure acually TRY to spel right this time, like i care
HustlerMitch 1 year ago
@HustlerMitch This is my point exactly. You had said someone was retarded or whatever for mispelling should yonks ago. I was the one making the point that its just a minor slip; that its Youtube and that you can type whatever you like, regardless of any fear of being repremanded by a spelling freak like you who doesnt actually know what he's on about. But I guess in a kind of backward way, and obviously without you realising it, you have agreed with me.
whoorderedasexybeast 1 year ago
william wallace kinda looks like gabriel belmont.
Sypher782 1 year ago
Wallace! Wallace! Wallace!
19drivenbyblood86 1 year ago
honestly i think it was 50 50 mabey somtimes shaka could win somtimes
oneperson0 1 year ago
Gotta admire the choreography here, loved Shaka's jumping around.
GarlicPudding 1 year ago
Wallace's attack was more devastating. Shaka was definitely a great warrior, but too much of his combat was frilly. Traditionally, European combat was much more straightforward. Speed is very deadly, but not if half of it was wasted.
fretburner18 1 year ago
they should do the pictish tribes vs any army the world has ever produced
Death2Zionists 1 year ago
@Death2Zionists Agreed :):):):):):)
celticbattleaxe 1 year ago
lolllllllllllll this show is stupid it's cool how they show the weapons but its so staged and whack like this very episode the zulus throwing stick thing beats wallaces chain and ball like come on seriously........ a stick LOL
Death2Zionists 1 year ago
@Death2Zionists The "stick" was a was club specifically made to be thrown at an enemy. It was given it edge because it had longer range, and was lighter, making it easier to thrown in a fight.
So no, not stupid. :P
GarlicPudding 1 year ago
Okay, I have to ask the obvious question here... Why the HELL would Shaka Zulu be running through 3 continents and over several bodies of water for God knows how many days just to fight William Wallace?
What would really happen, Wallace would stand there saying "How in the HELL did you even hear of me?"
unclefestus 1 year ago
william deserved to win there u have it william was a better fighter bye far!
mrlandshark911 1 year ago
shaka sould have one
michael92080 1 year ago
I can't believe shaka could still move a lot even after that shot to his hip.
BensonChu24 1 year ago
The whole portrayal of William Wallace in this is nonsense - he was a lowlander who dressed and fought in a typical medieval fashion (no less deadly for that though). And no Scot would wield a double-handed claymore for a couple of centuries after him. Folklore also has it that he was an excellent bowman.
And it takes a racist frame of mind to automatically call the outcome racist.
Classensify 1 year ago
@Classensify the scottish actually had a two handed claymore style sword for bout 200 years prior to england.
tostedcheeseman 1 year ago
@tostedcheeseman - if you say so (and my couple of centuries was hastily written and admittedly off) but that's a 16th century claymore they're putting in his hands. And the so-called 'Wallace Sword' is widely believed to be no such thing.
Classensify 1 year ago
@Classensify oh i no the wallace sword is bogus... the blade might b real mayb. but as seeing information on the claymore style sword that scotland had in that time period is scarce it wld b hard to have an accurate recreation to do the tests with so they did the next best thing
tostedcheeseman 1 year ago
they may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!
jmoon83392 1 year ago
Awww I was expecting him to say FREEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! at the end...so disappointed...
TheManzinator 1 year ago
THIG AR LATHA! FREEDOM! COMMON SCOTLAND!
FatAssProductions 1 year ago
Sorry but can anyone tell me what Shaka Zulu spits at William Wallace?
CocaKohla97 1 year ago
@CocaKohla97 spit of poison
bourne2fly619 1 year ago
@CocaKohla97 It's supposed to be poison.
GarlicPudding 1 year ago
i remember i only watched all of this episode because i could'nt find braveheart
general3dill1 1 year ago
Jump attacking in deadliest warrior ALWAYS leads to death example : ninja vs spartan
kyuubifan5 1 year ago
good fight
RevGNR 1 year ago
we will never know who would win hand to hand i wish it had been that way it would of been better that way because if you lose hand to hand there is no excuse. and it just seems more honorable and manly. however, in reality the british used guns and cannons on the zulu and still lost three times. which would make people naturally suspicious but anyways i love william wallace who doesn't like braveheart he fought the english too. would braveheart lose to a longshank one on one? i don't think so.
onesexyblackbiatch 1 year ago
damn wallace just dominates
CadetPO3Valadez 1 year ago
how far can ya spit chief?
marhoppy1 1 year ago
@DXSXDXSXD nobody could survive a spear shot to the got and thats why this is bullshit
Remedave1 1 year ago
@Remedave1 what about the war vets that got their legs blown off by a land mine? they lived
randomballa 1 year ago
@randomballa do you know what it means to take a internal shot with a spear getting your legs blown off is nothing compared to getting stabbed in the organs its to fatal
Remedave1 1 year ago
@Remedave1 the spear didn't look like it hhit any vitals. maybie a kidney and his intestine. he would have died later from bleeding and/or infection, but lived long enough to kill Shaka. a true warrior shouldn't die from a stab immediately, and that spear only went about 2-3 inches in
randomballa 1 year ago
first of all why isnt he dead when shaka hit him with the spear shot
Remedave1 1 year ago
this is pure bullshit as usual the white man wins in his fantasy world. Number one shaka would have never ran from this man. Let me portray shaka in this I would show you what shaka really would have done there would be a real murder not a fake one. When shaka was leading the zulus the british who had guns couldnt stop the zulus so how in the hell could this man beat shaka in close combat shaka created close combat
Remedave1 1 year ago
@Remedave1 you do realise that william wallace was slaughtering dozens of better trained and better armed soldiers in battle long before shaka right?
eyehatemacs 1 year ago
@eyehatemacs yup but are you familiar with the heart and intelligance of shaka
Remedave1 1 year ago
@Remedave1
Sure. Does this mean you think only the Shaka Zulu could have heart and intelligence?
emncaity 1 year ago
@emncaity of course not but the way deadliest warrior depicted shaka's attitude fighting style etc.... is no where near on point. Shaka was beyond this. A spear shot to the gut and he lives no way. IRON CAN DESTROY IRON
Remedave1 1 year ago
@eyehatemacs : better armed maybe but not better trained...
Loadfaster 1 year ago
@Remedave1 and as usual somebody complains because a black man died. the fact that he's black doesn't mean this is racist. william was simply the better fighter
randomballa 1 year ago
@randomballa william wasnt a better fighter.... hand to hand combat william would lose Im certian of that. He was better equiped but I dont think hes a better fighter.
Loadfaster 1 year ago
@Remedave1 : agreed.. Im amazed that the deadliest warrior show didnt even mention that the british who had guns and cannons and shit like that still lost to shaka...
Loadfaster 1 year ago
@DXSXDXSXD this is bullshit shaka zulu was by far more deadly tougher intelligent, and faster no tall linky scotish man would stand a chance against an angry black man with speed, strategy, and itelligence. Also shaka would have never an against this man
Remedave1 1 year ago
WILLIAM WALLACE FTW
BEST WARRIOR EVER
ALL WILLIAM WALLACE FANS WATCH BRAVEHEART WITH MEL GIBSON
zoorroo66 1 year ago
@zoorroo66 i agree. william always wins.
randomballa 1 year ago
Everyone I'm posting the fight between the CIA and KGB tonight so you won't have to wait very long...
Braddude614 1 year ago
@Braddude614 thanks for taking the time to post these mate
Landofwoads 1 year ago
dim432 1 year ago
SHAKA ZULU should of won.
JDominator12243 1 year ago
@BlackKingish How is it racist? It was just data and weapons tests and William Wallace's were better. So stop saying if a black warrior goes on this show to fight that they sould win. Remember the Zande Warrior and the Somali Pirate? They both WON! So stop whining about 1 loss and stop posting stupid crap like that.
Braddude614 1 year ago
@Braddude614 He was obviously sarcastic.
garrysmodmoviemaker1 1 year ago
This is racist. Blacks should always win.
BlackKingish 1 year ago
@BlackKingish
Lol then Klitschkos must be biggest racists in this known world
yalguunburen 1 year ago
impaled!!! lol!!!
zman6601 1 year ago
lol the outcome of this fight didnt suprise me one bit, but the amount of time it took for wallace to slay shaka did suprise me. In reality, he woulda chopped that skinny black guy in half in the first 10 seconds.
romansoldierofhonor 1 year ago
this is bull shaka zulu should have won that was a licky shot at best william wallace is a pansy
knockdownupside 1 year ago
i knew mel gibson would defeat pom pom feet
joekikass3000 1 year ago
Stats on Shaka Zulu
He was 6'3
He was said to be of wiry muscle
He developed a fighting style that was unmatched in South Africa which lead years later to the Zulus fighting an even defeating a British army who had guns and cannons.
He made his soldiers run everday so they can be better warriors and cross much ground.
So i dont see him loseing to wallace but the one thing wallace has is a big sword but speed and strength he do not have.
blacklion105 1 year ago
@blacklion105 There's a reason, Romans built two walls the width of Scotland. There's a reason Napolean fell to Scottish guards. There's a reason the Netherlands hired Scots to fight the Spanish and there's a reason why brigades the world over employ Scottish themes. And there's a reason the SAS is the model for all elite fighting units in the world, and there's a reason it's full of Scots. But yeah, maybe Zulu could have beat Wallace, then again...
NilDesperandum777 1 year ago
@NilDesperandum777 You cant even find anybody saying what William Wallace was built like but Shaka they have people telling you he was 6'3 muscle ran miles...was in amazing shape and he designed a fighting system that crushed a couple of African clans and atleast once a British army in a battle. To me that tells you what the man was about beyond color he was amazing thats it.
blacklion105 1 year ago
@blacklion105 "To me that tells you what the man was about beyond color he was amazing thats it. " Ahh, nobody said anything about the colour of either man. And the only person in this conversation that identifies themselves by colour is you. So, you might want to check your vision. And as for beating British armies, uhm...Wallace actually invaded England and but for the betrayal by Scottish "lords" might have done what Robert the Bruce would do a little later.
NilDesperandum777 1 year ago
@NilDesperandum777 And if you wanna get real deep the Scots did not invade Africa until they had something called the gun LOL. No body with swords even wanted to go that deep into Africa thats why the called people Savages because the was fierce animale like...which really meant you dont wanna go in their without having your X's and O's dot'd out.
blacklion105 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blacklion105 "And if you wanna get real deep the Scots did not invade Africa until they had something called the gun LOL." If you want to get ACCURATE, Scotland never invaded any country except for England. Although if you consider David Livingstone - a Scot - an invasion, then so be it. But no African worth their salt would consider him a conquerer would they? As for "savages", why didnt Europe or anyone else take on African mercenaries or themes as their own as they have with Scots? Think.
NilDesperandum777 1 year ago
@NilDesperandum777 Plus truthfully The Brits used more guns against their kind in battle once they developed it they used it against the scots the irish and anybody else they could smash who carried a sword at the time...youd do the same...why fight Bruce lee when i can shoot him LOL.
blacklion105 1 year ago
@blacklion105 "youd do the same...why fight Bruce lee when i can shoot him LOL" I see, so it's funny if used against Scots and Irish, but it's just "cowardice" if used against Zulus? Sorry, man, doesnt work that way, and yeah, sadly, that's how military works, efficiency over theatricality and bravery. But the point of pointing out Scotland's military history as a people, is to convey to you, that Scots have been fighting forever and as warriors, are probably peerless, even to this day. SAS.
NilDesperandum777 1 year ago
@NilDesperandum777 So you truly think William Wallace would have beat Shaka? someone faster and stronger...who designed his own fighting system?
blacklion105 1 year ago
@blacklion105 What makes you think Zulu was stronger or faster? Ever seen Highland "games"? Scots are a strong people. Strong enough to clear out Romans, Vikings, the English and weild claymores with about twenty other pieces of weaponry on them. And all in a running, constant advancement. And in terms of bravery and ferocity, well...Most historians would place Picts/Scots at the top of the class. It's a stereotype for a reason. Didnt Idi Amin have his guards where kilts? Do you wonder why?
NilDesperandum777 1 year ago
@NilDesperandum777 Not saying they suck....but ever time has its greatest warriors do you agree? thats like saying your scotish Soldiers who protected Idi Amin would be Navy Seals....i believe that would never happen catch my point this is why you have warriors that never meet they from different time periods and to me its Shaka Zulu the man vs William wallace the man...and Shaka is stronger plain and simple...now as far as the zulu vs the scots then they need to do a war version of Deadliest.
blacklion105 1 year ago
@blacklion105 Sorry i meant Scotish guard vs the Navy seals.
blacklion105 1 year ago
@blacklion105 1/2 - Well of course every era has it's greatest warriors. Your point about Scots guards and Navy Seals makes no sense in that, the SAS, the elite fighting force from which all other fighting forces learned their trade was founded by a Scot, Sir Archibald David Sterling, and at one time was and may still, be comprised of 70- 80% Scots - draw the logical conclusion. Concerning Zulu's strength vs Wallace's, how precisely can you say Shaka is the stronger, plain and simple? (Cont.)
NilDesperandum777 1 year ago
@NilDesperandum777 Well the Navy seals tactics our a combination of all people of war....that's why they the best. If they ever did a deadliest warriors with navy seals they'll win Majority of the battles if not all. Now as far as Shaka Zulu vs Wallace man on man ima go with Shaka.....now i would love to see the scots vs the zulus to see the outcome but being that the Brits fought them with guns and lost atleast one major battle that says alot about the Zulu's.,
blacklion105 1 year ago
@blacklion105 Again, I don't know what you're basing your conclusion that the Navy Seals are the pinnacle of modern day elite fighting forces. It's widely held and maintained that the SAS of Great Britain is the premier unit. The SAS was founded by a Scot, Sir Archibald David Sterling in which Scots have always been prominently present. And a word on the Navy Seals...Another Scot, John Paul Jones, founded the US Navy. So...As much as you feel you're right, you couldnt be more incorrect.
NilDesperandum777 1 year ago
@blacklion105 2/2 I ask this for a number of reasons, chief of which is the fact that just to battle, Scots used heavy weaponry like the claymore, plus numerous knives,axes, their shield, light armour,etc...And by all accounts, Scots were very quick fighters, so they were obviously to a man very strong and fast with near endless endurance. As a people, Scots have always been in demand all over the world in situations of war and combat. Africans on the other hand...not so much.
NilDesperandum777 1 year ago
@NilDesperandum777 Plus something that you need to realize nobody ever went into middle or south Africa until they had a gun thats a historical fact when the Romans tried they lost their armys and never did it again....so not until people had the cannon and gun did they even go that deep into the jungle. So when you see battles with Africans it was with the gun and not the sword vs the Spear and cowhide shield.
blacklion105 1 year ago
@blacklion105 Nobody went into the middle of Africa because it's terrain was problematic. There simply wasn't enough incentive to move into the contient. It wasn't that the gun allowed men into Africa, technology did. You can go with Shaka Zulu all you like, in this instance in which man on man battles were played out in scenario based on weaponry of each time and man, Wallace was the decisive victor. But with a name like "blacklion" I guess asking for unbiased opinion is a bit of a stretch.
NilDesperandum777 1 year ago
@NilDesperandum777 Why is my opion stretched beacause my name Blacklion? im lost you must be a scot if you want the scots to win so bad...ill put it like this if it was richard the lion heart vs shaka zulu id go with Richard why? because their is accounts of him doing battle upfront and close killing many men with his sword...just like Shaka...William i cant lie not to sure about and im not about to follow the movie mel gibson did...i need facts. catch what im saying?
blacklion105 1 year ago
@blacklion105 In terms of knowing, none of us know. All we can do is speculate. The show relies on information and the computer can't be biased. Certainly I'm impressed with the history of King Shaka, but the history of Wallace against the most oppressive regime under his own country is quite a history as well. Suffice it to say, it would be a good one.
NilDesperandum777 1 year ago
@blacklion105 against a man who waged war against the most powerful empire in the world at its time and was willing to die for the cause.
Mecha120 1 year ago
@Mecha120 See and thats all im saying this man went up against guns with spears now thats amazing.
blacklion105 1 year ago
@blacklion105 He used spears against guns and cannons and won!
Loadfaster 1 year ago
@blacklion105 Shaka Zulu was only 6'3? lmao William Wallace's was a giant of a man, his sword was 5'4 alone, and so its user would have needed to be both tall and strong to use it properly in battle.
I am actually surprised he took so long to win.
madnes10 1 year ago
@madnes10 You been watching to many movies LOL
blacklion105 1 year ago
@blacklion105 : im sorry I dont see shaka losing either... I think most people underestimate anything from Africa... Yes I do believe that but some will call me racist because I said tyhat.....
Loadfaster 1 year ago
@Loadfaster Yeah thats what im saying Shaka created his own fighting system one that defeated an Army with guns years later....im saying you have to respect a man that creates his own fighting system and it works.
blacklion105 1 year ago
@blacklion105 back then guns sucked. they had to reload every second and they had no armor or defence. if the english attacked with armored knights the zulu wouldnt've standed a chance.
nior000 1 year ago
@nior000 Ok is that so? hmmm the Romans had armour and never tried to enter Africa come again with something better :)
blacklion105 1 year ago
@blacklion105 lol!! are you saying the zuluz couldv taken on the roman empire? hah! haha! they probably didnt take africa because they couldntv cared less. thats like saying "well because the U.S. military CAN nuke koria but wont means that koria is obviously superior". the romans had tactics, armor, shields. the celts faught the romans and lost alot and i bet even the celts are better then the zulu. just face the facts. a bunch of tribal africans with sticks cant beat the sword and shield.
nior000 1 year ago
@nior000 Either way some Africans beat Englishmen withguns end of story LOL.
blacklion105 1 year ago
@blacklion105 yeah they beat guys with guns that had to reload once after every fire. of course the're gonna win cause once they catch upto the guys with guns the englishmen will be trying to reload and then getting a spear to their face.
nior000 1 year ago
@nior000 Well I guess that means you agree with me. So do you have something against Shaka with this match up? They have him losing I just don't believe he would have lost to this man maybe someone else like Richard the Lion heart who had a few kills under his belt. I think a lot of people think about Brave heart an think this guy wallace was an amazing warrior but he never created a fighting system like Shaka....also Shaka was said to be 6'3 pure muscle this written by Brit soldiers.
blacklion105 1 year ago
@blacklion105 i believe shaka was an amazing warrior i just dont think he had the weapons and armor to beat most warriors. i believe shaka zulu could beat a gladiator or a celt but you have to remember that william wallace was a strategist and didnt just use all force. he planned his fights out, that and he had a realy realy huge sword.
nior000 1 year ago