@gtk4158a It was the British, not the English. "What insults the British the most is these Zulus were deemed inferior the The English in all ways". No, they Weren't.... WTF are you talking about??
@gtk4158a The Battle of Intombe (really no more than a skirmish) was an embarrassment. The officer in charge, Captain David Moriarty, had been given orders to take a proper defensive position; Moriarty failed to do so. He was the first to be killed that night. Lieutenant Henry Harward, Moriarty's second-in-command, grabbed a horse and bolted, abandoning his men to their fate.
very far from invicible? except from Islandhwa, the stupid commander's, the British only lost two men and 52 wounded. They never lost more than two men after Islandhwa.
Plus these Zulu's slaughtered the S.African tribes. Zulu's are native to CENTRAL Africa, not SOUTH africa, so yes they are inferior because they said S.Africa deseved to die "because their leader had a bad dream". This is highly believable as Zulu's are very zealous.
The British did not plunder Zululand at all, nor did we treat them as subhuman. After we beat them, we deposed the King and forced their chiefs to recognise British sovereignty over them. We did this through the use of contracts rather than the use of naked force. Such was our leniency with the Zulus that some of the Natal natives vowed never to fight again for the British, as they had done so partly for an anticipated post war looting spree rather than regional stability.
If they were outnumbered 16 to 1... how is that their greatest loss ever? Wouldn't it have been a much bigger loss if they outnumbered the enemy and STILL got the shit kicked out of them?
and there was bodies of men evrywhere, screams of the dying and officers trying to sort the mess out, and then the sky went black, must have been horrific
@giovamas No one knows if it just a myth or really occurred. Do you think they had time to stop and shake hands while under attack ?, i personally dont think it happened, feel they were fighting hard for there life's and got overwhelmed before they could do anything
@chrisM33 Yes u are rigth.. maybe it's just mythe or maybe it's true.. who knows what's happened in a soldier's mind closed to die? I read also that Younghusband's body was put in a shield.. a great honor .. Anyway, a part the myth. those men fougth very well and proud and deserved something in the movie (sorry my bad english but im italian)
@giovamas No its cool mate, would have been nice if it did occur, but lots of myths still with this batle that are now impossable to tell if they are true or not. One thing the film did miss, was at the height of the battle a eclipse occured, the sky went earie dark, and in fact it upset the brits more then the zulus who thought it was a good omen, while for the brits it must have made the chaos even worse, think about it they were being overhwhelmed and found there retreat blockled
@chrisM33 Thanks mate! You are rigth! i read about eclypse.. it seems that sometimes nature makes something during a bloodbath.. i think about earthwake in Trasimeno battle.. big storm in Teutoburgo.. two disasters of another big army. And maybe there are other exemples!
@Tam1297 SHAKA assimilated other tribes, like the Buthelezi (I met with Mangosuthu Gatsha Buthelezi in the late '70's btw). Dingane would in his paranoid moments decide to exterminate vassal tribes like the Cele.
As to the British treating their subjects as subhuman, don't you think that's something of a generalization? Did David Livingstone treat Africans as subhuman? God knows Stanley did, but not all of the British felt the same way.
@Tam1297 Explain to me then. I don't see much difference between tribalism and Imperialism, except as a matter of scale. The Zulus shared the same beliefs as their neighbors and spoke a similar language. The British must have looked like they arrived from the moon.
I don't think the Saxons said "Let's take over Britain. They have lots of coal and I'm sure they're a good market for our manufactured goods." They probably said "let's take their gold and force them to pay Saxon geld."
@Tam1297 "they former [Saxons] controlled their own territory..." Uh huh. After invading Britain from Germany and Denmark, then they made it their own. Sounds like the Zulus in that regard. A big difference is the Anglo-Saxon age lasted some 5 centuries, while the independent Zulu [choose one: kingdom/empire/caliphate/democratic republic] lasted just over 60 years.
@Tam1297 There's nothing incoherent in my six posts - they just bother the hell out of you so you ramble on about anything that takes your fancy. 'Different Type of Empire'....that's a joke, right?
@Tam1297 Not necessary - you write enough rambling, disjointed nonsense for ten men. Besides, I already made my point. I don't keep repeating myself - I've posted six comments already. If you wish to write something for the sake of seeing it, then go ahead. But write them where it says 'respond to this video', don't need them in my inbox You don't have a clue, do you....Saxons, Picts!....get Real. Have a nice day.
@Tam1297 Not necessary - you write enough rambling, disjointed nonsense for ten men. Besides, I already made my point. I don't keep repeating myself - I've posted six comments already. You don't have a clue, do you....Saxons, Picts!....get Real. Have a nice day.
@Tam1297...the Zulu Empire was bigger than Western Europe. Not an Empire? tell that to the Matebele:- As for the Saxons and Gaels, you clearly have No Frame of Reference. "Sharing the landmass"??!!...LMAO. Right back to what I said in the first place. You're saying the Zulu Empire was 'acceptable to other Africans" because they 'shared the same Landmass'!! i.e. they were 'black brothers' (not white), what school did you go to? BTW, all Europe was dominated by trade, like the entire world is now
@Tam1297..they are going to get a piece of the action with their new 'partners' who consider them sub-human. Dream on, Jack - China will own 90% of the world's copper - needed for wiring anything digital. Cobalt (look it up) also will be the Property of China. Schools and hospitals, the Brits did that as a matter of course, along with all the beautiful buildings you see in the former colonies. Explain the 'difference' between the Zulu Empire and the B.E. Saxons and Gaels? that's not an Empire!!
@Tam1297...good, at least you're not insulting my intelligence by refuting the fact that the 'Zulu Kingdom' was, in fact, a massive Empire. Destroyed the balance of life?, which was What? Africa's ass now belongs to China. Meet the new-boss. China has 'bought' all mineral rights to enormous areas such as Zaire/Congo, in return for 'building schools, hospitals etc, and will continue to do so 'til after you and I are dead. The Africans are gleefully taking this shafting with the impression that..
...and anyone who contends that a 'black' Empire was better for Africa than a 'white' emperor is an idiot. Ever heard of Napoleon Buonaparte?...Europeans found the idea of a European Emperor (i.e. white) a totally unacceptable idea. Naturally he was eventually neutralised, imprisoned and killed - after the death of millions and an orgy of destruction. The idea that a black African Conqueror and Emperor was 'acceptable' to Africans insults their intelligence.
@Tam1297 The Zulus had Conquered half of sub-saharan Africa with Extreme Brutality, or Military Efficiency, and other African tribes were terrified of who would be next on the list, i.e.other African tribes were shit-scared of becoming vassals of the Zulu Empire. This was Indeed a clash of two Empires. Why do you think there were tribes who allied themselves with the Brits?...the lesser of two evils if nothing else. The 'Zulu kingdom' you cite was a massive Empire forged by military might.
@slideharp1 "The Zulus had conquered half of sub-Saharan Africa." Not even close. But they WERE one of the largest, though I'd have to see if they were larger than the Songhai Empire in West Africa, for example.
But I would rather trust my clan to the British. They might steal my land, kill off all my cattle (like they did in Rhodesia), and saddle me with a hut tax but at least they wouldn't have me and all my people impaled like Shaka could.
@ImperialistRunningDo You're right, of course, re: the size of the Z.E. I admit to havng a limited knowledge of the specific boundaries. I know of it as the most aggressive and rapidly-expanding, prob'ly because of the clash with the Boers and the British. I know practically nothing about the Songhai, but W.Africa being as large as it is different from Southern Africa, would have a very different history. Would the S.E. be the people who first began selling captives to the Portugese?, 1430's.
@slideharp1 I am embarrassed about how little I know about West Africa, but so much fell under a dark and sinister force. I'm referring to the French, of course. While I pride myself in my history, I really SUCK when it comes to languages. Much has been written about the great empires of East Africa but most in French, n'est-ce pas?
@ImperialistRunningDo... I'll wiki it. Just realised I'm in a different time-frame - 15thc isn't the 19th. Re. The French and Leopold's Belgians, they both seemed to 'lose it' when they ventured into Africa.
In real life the firing line was like 200 metres from the camp, the soldiers were not close together but 4 or 5 metres apart, and there was no shortage of ammunition, but still a half decent film (not as good as zulu thoug ;))
The film makes the battle out as a complete annihilation of the British but in reality a lot of soldiers actually escaped, this helped to warn the defenders of Rorkes Drift downriver.
@moleman9000 I think only five imperial officers escaped. None of the soldiers in red tunics survived. Cetsweyo gave orders to kill the red soldiers, but let the civilians in black coats live. Many soldiers (like artillery)were in dark blue tunics. Most of the men who escaped were with the various Natal units.
@pob3000tb Nine years earlier in the Battle of Sedan, French Gen Ducrot said "We have put ourselves in a chamber pot and now they are going to **** on us." Words I often use while war-gaming....
Since when was the WAR a defeat? We lost battles against the Zulu's yes. But the final hammer blow was at Rorke's Drift where the Welsh held their ground and forced the Zulu's back. We eventually invaded South Africa and Botswana. So i don't see how we could have lost the WAR? I'm just thirteen. Some of you lot need to do your homework before you go writing immature comments about a British defeat. We had the largest Empire the world has ever known. We will lose battles. But that's what happens.
@scimitar121 1) the "final hammer blow" was at Ulundi, when the last Zulu army was crushed and the capital burned. 2) Rorke's Drift was defended by the 24th Foot "The Warwickshires." They didn't become the South Wales Borders until AFTER the war was over. 3) Invading South Africa? WHAT? Where did you think the British were coming from? Mozambique? 4) 13? Well, you're off to a good start. Try to find the book "Zulu" by Saul David.
What's with all the Anti-Britain comments?? I will admit there have been time's when Britain's actions have been questionable but then again the same could be said about every country. E.g. For France it was Napoleon, for Germany it was Hitler ect, ect.
As for the person who said that they were glad the British lost, just remember the people who had to die for that to happen. So still glad thousands of people had too die?? I would only be glad if it had never happened in the first place.
@Drag0nsclaw2 For some reason, people seem to feel better about themselves if they can attack the behaviour of someone else's great-grandfathers. A mystery to me, but if you would tell me who YOURS were, I'll find something unkind to say. Lol.
The facts behind this war aren't what most people think they are. London did NOT want to go to war with the Zulu; Sir Bartle Frere started this almost single-handedly. Zululand was NOT annexed afterwards; Wolseley split it into 13 bits and walked away.
Here's is the thing, if the British massed thier troops to square, with good interior lines to distribute the ammo, using a perimeter obrstuction to slow the Zulus down, they would have wiped the Zulus out. The Zulu bodies whould have piled up so fast, that the Zulu bodies thenselves would have slowed down the charge. This is what you get when you underestimate your opponent.
Yes the brits made quiet a habit of useing other troops to clean up the mess they would make of things, australians saved their bacon on more than one ocassion in the first world war. And Montgomery's soldiers dismal performance in operation Goodwood in the 2nd world war proves sadly that they were not up to the task, should have stuck to subjucating tribes, they were good at that.
@1234muffin Chelmsford had one Gatling gun available, but sent it off with the right column, under Col. Pearson. The Gatling gun was used with effect at the Battle of Inyezane, so couldn't have been at Isandlwana.
There were cannons at Isandlwana, but no Gatling guns.
@sernam116 What about the Phillipinesthe same year when the benighted McArthur put his tail between his legs and left his armies to rot in Japanese prisons
@sernam116 60 000 japs versus 120000 british troops in Singapore. Japs had aviation support, good logistics and etc. They just forced british to surreb=nder by bombing them each hour.
zulu got nailed after this just a bunch of niggers with big lipps haha monkeys if he hadnt split his force we would have kicked their as and we did after this battle haha
That's fair enough but you should really be aware that the Zulus were an empire themselves and had expanded their lands too, occupying other African tribes. This is really 2 empires fighting each other. You'll notice even in the film that there are many blacks fighting with the British.
Further, this film is about ordinary soldiers who died for the mistakes of their superiors, so writing comments like that is quite insulting to their memory really.
wrong zulus are not an empire you seem to be confusing a kingdom with an empire how can you say that people who dont even have a capacity to even make swords empire holders empires are like rome or Macedonian or the parthians who conquer other countrys and you have standing armys and navys for the sole porpous for expansion its like saying that aztec indians where an empire
Who the hell are you to just write "wrong" about what I write? I'm sorry I didn't know you're a fully qualified historian who can't spell or punctuate. Whether they could make swords or not is irrelvant, they can still be an empire. They had a vast army for a start. And yes, the Aztecs were an empire, hence the name "Aztec Empire"; technology is irrelevant. The Aztecs had the same archaic weapons as their enemies, and they were the most powerful in the region at the time, just like the Zulus.
look man im just tryin to explain to you the definition of empire like you said it yourself they had power over a region not on the continent or even other african coutrys on your definition brazil is an empire because it exeercisez its power on other south american countrys if the zulus and aztecs are empire that what is not an empire at those ages tribes so you either live in a small tribal comunity or if you have large armies than your an empire
OK well fair enough I see your point; when I made the original post I was trying to point out that the Zulus were the dominant power in South Africa at the time, and had been expansionist themselves, in effect, building an empire for themselves by expanding their borders. Brazil keeps within its own boundaries, despite being very influencial, which is why I wouldn't describe it as an empire. The Aztecs were also expansionist, which why they can be seen as a empire too.
The definition of an empire is a nation built off the conquest of other nations, in that regard both the Aztecs and Zulus were empire, albeit technologically backward ones. Zulu dominion extended over many conquered peoples, regardless of if those conquered peoples are all currently found in South Africa and Zimbabwe, at one point they were independed before being gobbled up by a genocidal meglomaniac named Shaka.
@Neo11111 Right. And I say so as an amateur historian and wargamer.
It's especially annoying to hear how "wronged" the Aztecs were by the Spanish. The Aztecs were complete bastards, the indigenous peoples knew as much, and it was they and not the Spanish who exterminated them at the first opportunity. There's still a lingering hatred from the other tribes in Mexico towards the Aztecs, despite years of Marxists trying to build a "Mexica" ethnicity up and use it to play race games over there.
There were a lot of soldiers from India fighting for the crown, but none in Africa at this time that I can think of. Much later on in 1906 there was a Zulu uprising and Indians, including one Mohandas K Gandhi, assisted the British. Is that what you're thinking of?
Lol how'd you come to that conclusion consiering i am actualy well educated and have a good job while at uni hmm yer proper low life that is. I would assume a chav living with mummy while binging with other hoodlums would be low life but you kno what whatever go ahead and judge someone you don't know. Ugh.. Grow up ty.
Badly organised defensive line. Should have been another victory for Queen Vic`s heroic troops. See "Rorkes Drift" a lot fewer white faces, but far superior battle lines drawn.
"Usuthu?" this is what Encyclopedia Britanica has to say:
By the mid-1850s Cetshwayo was head of a young Zulu group known as the Usuthu. During a Zulu civil war in 1856, Cetshwayos Usuthu force defeated his rival and brother Mbuyazwes Gqoza group in a violent encounter at the Battle of Ndondakasuka.
Could still mean kill. The Zulu kraal under Shaka was called Kwa Bulawayo meaning the place of the killing. Names have meanings. Maybe his group's name meant kill.
lol gta think tho this film thousands of em charge at same time n one big sweep nothing could stop that, but in Zulu at rorkes drift they attack in waves of hundreds so it is easier to hold it back. They were lucky, these poor sods just got raided. lol
im sure some mounted heavy machine guns, an ac-130 spectre gunship and a couple of apache helicopters could stop it :D but i know what you mean, i was scared just watching the film haha
ACTUALLY,Sir,please note that the annual commemoration ceremonies in Mexico and Eire for the members of the "SAN PATRICIOS",ex US Army men who had deserted from the US Army,to fight with their co-religionists in Mexico,could also be considred to be an assertion of Sovereignity,as the Mexican citizens in question were considered to be still American.THWARTED to the North,the WEST and South alone were left as targets for what could perhaps be called "IMPERIAL EXPANSION",or A PLACE IN THE SUN!!!
ACTUALLY,the War of 1812 can be considered a victory by everyone, although the side whose Government had to flee from their Capitol,and watch the "WHITE HOUSE2 being burned,might perhaps have been more inclined to consider that a Peace Treaty might,perhaps, be a GOOD THING.
Modern day US troops are probabl the worst in the world, they are tactically retarted. I did work experience in the british army, i heard stories from the sergeants about how dumb and out of shape the us troops were, and about all the the things british troops do the them, e.g. cutting there laces while there asleep! Remeber, the US army has killed many allied troops in iraq and Afgahanistan.
Exactly. You "heard" stories. It doesn't mean they are true. I "heard" the same things about British troops. However, when I actually served w/ them I found out most of those stories were absolute "bollocks." You're an idiot if you believe everything Tommy the Limey or Billy the Yank have to say. Finally, although its popular for Britons (and others) to label us Yanks as trigger-happy hot heads who kill thier allies, keep in mind EVERY country has had friendly fire incidents in the GWOT.
America "won two wars"? Quite apart from the nonsense that is, let's not forget that America entered the war(s) out of pure self-interest. By the time it finally decided to join the fray, Australian divisions (for instance) had already been fighting for three years! In fact they then went on to hand the Japanese their first land defeat of World War II. In World War I, the Americans did not seriously engage the Germans until the very LAST year of the war!
Please note that,as Yoko Ono wrote in the "Daily Mail" newspaper many years ago, American Sanctions against Japan inevitably meant that Japan had no option BUT to attack America, and that Hitlerian Germany and Japan had a DEFENSIVE Treaty ONLY. However, Hitler declared war on America, so America had little option but to go to war in Europe also. The priority was Germany due to ATOMIC research,so it was, as ever, self-interest by the USA,that dictated Policy,or, no European War.FAIR enough!!!
What? In the war of 1812 the U.S went to Canada for reconn, all the battles occurred in the U.S. i.e. the battle of New Orleans English losses 2,332 U.S losses 314. WWII England was given deep discount on supplies bought...From America, because your industrial base sucked...What happened at Dunkirk? U.S. had greater troops, supplies and commanders most importantly won more battles...Next time learn history from something other than patrotic propoganda
Won two wars? I only count one(due to the french).
The war of 1812 surely can't count as a usa victory, when their damn goal in the war was the conquest of canada.
USA barely saved anyone in WWI .
Also a common misconception is that the usa saved britain WWII(france yes,britain no).Despite popular belief ,britain bought the supplies through their own money(so excludes the supplies as aid).
Tuscon316 next time learn history from something other than patrotic propoganda....
Actually, sir we had many goals in the war of 1812. However, the main goal was not the conquest of Canada. The main goal was to assert our sovereignty. The British had been stopping US flagged ships and impressing Americans to serve on thier warships. In some cases, they actually hanged expatriated British military deserters who were American citizens. Since, we asserted our soveriegnty by stopping the impressions, we consider the war of 1812 a victory.
Over a million Vietnamese dead only 56.000 U.S. dead, Many restrictions on the U.S.! did you know we didnt even attempted to attack the north nor Cambodia, And by the wars end the Vietcong was almost wiped out after the Tet attack, and the north was also severely weaken, if not for America wanting a end to a meaningless war we would have won in another year or so!!...THATS A FACT!
The War in Nam was probably before your time, but I can remember when we INVADED Cambodia in April of '70. Nixon announced it on TV. A wave of protests in the US lead to the killing of 4 students in Kent State, and the wounding of 4 others at U of Buffalo.
We bombed the bejeebers out of North Vietnam and mined their harbor at Haiphong. That is an "attack," no?
But we agree that the war was meaningless; you can't fight for democracy while propping up dictators.
Its not too bad! Although you do have points I think you overstating the U.S. operations there, There wasnt no real invasions of Cambodia, we did illegal operations in there and only after we got caught did nixon admit it to the public, we werent at war with that country. also while there was bombing it was mostly focused south of the border. they didnt have to much to bomb up north, the mining yes but NV didnt possess a major naval threat! but you r right no doubt about the point of the war.
One of the most remarkable battles ever fought, both sides acted faultlessly regardless of why they were there. The fact that when it was over, a Zulu force remained that was enough to wipe any trace of the english from the field SALUTED them instead says everything.
When soldiers were soldiers, not hiding behind smart weapons and afraid to get their hands dirty:)
Well that's true if you ignore the fact that the Zulus wiped out a British army including the sick and wounded, taking no prisoners.
What you're refering to is Rourke's Drift which is where the remnants made their last stand, and superior weaponry showed in the confines of a enclosed space.
Out in the open without artillery the army was destroyed.
But as has been said, in all her wars, England always seems to win one battle, the last one.
Like so many on you tube your facts are all over the place. The zulus didn't have "100,000s" of men - their entire army was around 30-40,000 men, absolute maximum, and many of them were old. It was Britain that had 100,000s of men available and an industrial empire's might to use to fight with. To say zulus had no respect for life is just plain ignorance. They had a highly sophisticated belief sytem which involved "quaka" - a purifying ritual. I suggest YOU learn your history before you post.
Well Britain might have had this, and Britain might have had that, is true, but they didn't have all that on the field of battle at that particular time. The British were used to fielding small forces against native troops, relying on bravery, superior weaponry and discipline for success.
Not for the last time, this was a bit of a disaster.
Although lets be honest, the Zulus were cruel, vicious and nasty savages, well disciplined too. Lets not paint them whiter than white?
The fact that you are unable to have a discussion with someone else and cope with them disagreeing with you without resorting to abuse to belittle them really says a lot more about you than me. As for raping, murder, pillage etc - I hardly think this is the domain of blacks only. Enough white serial killers, rapists, murderers, criminals to go round too. Just like blacks. The difference is I'm well-educated, informed and not a hateful racist biggot. Go on, say something outrageous again, wow....
the 2nd world war put an end 2 tha british empire ,after the war britain did not have the resources 2 govern large countrirs so far away, this is why britain gave independance to so many colonies after tha war you see.
How did they get an empire in the first place? And how for 100 years was this empire the largest the world had EVER seen, covering 1/3 of the world's population and 1/4 of its land surface? Oh yes, you must be right, the reason for this success was Britain's inability as a military power. Good point. I see where you're coming from. And the culture (inc the language you struggle to speak) lasted in all the countries where the empire apparently "Phailed" (whatever "phaling" is)
By being elitist, I presume you mean I am right and know more than you/the other poster. I'm happy with that - being in the elite of something is a great thing to strive for. As for the comment, it was a reply to a patronising post. I admire intelligence and being right, but cannot abide or respect those who pretend to know more than others but actually haven't read/got a clue about it. The poster deserved what he got. Get over it.This is a discussion on the Zulu War not petty insults like yours
yeah. you are probably right but a little word for the wise, dont run about making everyone else look stupid for your own benefit. you are not superior to anyone. you are just a guy who cant find his place in the world except behind oxfords doors.
Eh? Who's more sad, me for making one comment to correct someone's arrognace on one subject on youtube? Or you for getting so obsessed about me that you make a personal judgments based on nothing whatsoever than the fact I went to a particular university. So much for not finding a place behind Oxford's doors, I am currently a practising lawyer, so I guess I made the transition into the real world OK! But thanks for the concern, it's really very touching. Bless your jealousy-ridden cotton socks x
LOL from your profile "I'm a hard core gamer. (world of warcraft, fallout 3, Fable II, Halo 3, Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Beer pong *hell yeah*) I play the guitar and I like shooting shit."
And you say I AM THE ONE WHO HAS NO LIFE OR FRIENDS?!!!
and from what you have said here, im guessing you dont have any friends because everyone you meet notices how much of a douche bag you are. secondly, i didnt say you didnt have a life..
The British killed Zulu wounded and took no prisoners either - this was the pattern from Rorke's Drift through to the end of the war. So did the British have 0 respect for life? As for the sending wave after wave of warriors to test the firepower, I think you have watched "Zulu" too many times - this is a myth and there is no evidence for it. Zulu warriors were far too valuable to be thrown away like that. Don't believe Hollywood - it's good TV but not good history!
Lesson 1. You can have it free as it's Christmas. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to learn basic English skills. That means being able to write in a way that isn't reminiscent of a ten year old. "Them Zulus"? "killed...the Brits good?". Oh dear. As for your attempted point, I think you will find the Zulus also had a history of war and taking other people's land. They wiped out all the competition tribes under Shaka Zulu. But I doubt if the truth is of any interest to you.
Since you think you are the highest authority on every subject , I have to inform you that my
writing style was one hundred percent intentional and regardless of how vicious the Zulus were toward their fellow man I will always admire them for that massacre of British blood sucking insects.
That makes it even worse. Whatever you think, in the real world if you want to be taken seriously, you need to be able to speak and/or in a manner that doesn't undermine what you have to say. The sad thing is that if you sound like a simpleton, people will ignore what you have to say (even if it's a good point). As to your point, I see you are from the US. Quick to criticise the UK? Shall we talk about slavery, civil rights abuses and the Indians' land being stolen and treaties ignored, then?
The left horn attacked through the Dongas (gullies) thought impassable by the British. It was Lord Clemsford's fault for splitting his force. Then the smaller force tried to defend too large a perimeter, and the ammo in boxes. Notice in Zulu Dawn, the perimeter is kept small and the ammo is constantly distributed. The battle was so quick that Chetswayo's brother missed it, so he headed to Rorke's Drift to gain some glory. He retreated because Clemsford's army was fast approaching.
Oh dear. I take it you haven't read much. Catweyo's brother didn't "miss" the battle, he was held in reserve deliberately with the older warriors. The ammo theory has been heavily disproved with research from the battlefield. And by the time Chelmsford's force returned to Rorke's Drift, the Zulus were exhausted anyway after hours of fighting. Perhaps go and study it a bit more?
There is a recent book, (sorry I've forgotten the title), but it has the Zulu side of the battle. The right horn, commanded by Chetswayo's brother went west around the mountain to cut the road to Rorke's Drift. The bull's head attacked the line of Martini-Henry rifles, the first breech loaders. The Zulu commander was about to call off the attack when he notice the rate of fire falling off, (due to the ineffective ammo supply), so pressed forward with the loins.
Estimates vary, there are no reliably accurate sources for Zulu casualties during the war, but...at Isandlwana somewhere between 1000-3000 Zulu dead (personally, I think 1500 is a good guess) and a similar number wounded. Many of the wounds would have proved fatal 'cos the Zulus wouldn't have had the means to deal with massive trauma caused by large calibre bullets. Very heavy losses whatever the actual figures...definitely a Phyrric victory.
900 dead redcoats,well done the zulu,why don't you proud loyal subjects check out the ira,o yeah forgot we kicked your blue,inbred royal familys ass,your ancestos were murdering extremists,hell bent on world domination,remind you of anyone? o yeah hitler,we have a picture of a dead black and tan in our sheebeen
Get a life man, like youv'e ever seen a walking, talking black and tan. Somebody watch "michael Collins" too many times. And you people were terrified of black and tans in 1920, the same way you tremble at the sound of "SAS" these days.
Nice to see you're writing your comments in English. How come you don't use Gaelic? Nobody would know what you were bleating on about if it wasn't for the English language. You indignant prick...
Nearer 580 actually. As for the IRA, they have been totally defeated and forced to come to the table to talk.They have realised that 30 years of blowing up women and children did them no good and got them nowhere, other than to alienate world opinion against them and lose support.The likes of Gerry Adams and co. realised this, and realised that they couldn't win by force.They realised they could get more concessions through talks. So much for your IRA then.Anyone who praises killing kids is sick
I agree. I like how after the 9/11 attacks, the IRA was like...."Ok fuck it we dont want to be associated with those kinda terrorists because we will be total wiped out and hell will rain down on us"
we were watching this in history me and my friend felt sick of seeing the dead people and straight after the movie finished there was a power cut
beccatwilightfan 5 days ago
What rifles do the British use in this video? They are shorter than the standard Martini Henry. Carbines perhaps?
TalonMercenary 1 month ago
@TalonMercenary By the time this film was made, Martini Henry rifles were becoming expensive. So they handed the cheaper carbines out to the extras.
ImperialistRunningDo 1 month ago
British - Yes! We have the power of guns!
Zulu - And? We've got 25,000 people
British - Crap...
whatdouthink96 1 month ago
@whatdouthink96
Zulu - We also have an eclipse, your spread out thin and there's un-even terrain.
British - Fuck! Uh our ammo wasn't well dispest.
Zulu - Recent archology showed ammo boxs remains spread all over the place.
British - ,,,,,,,,,,
TheGroundedAviator 3 weeks ago
@TheGroundedAviator Me - Attempting to make a joke!
You - Have to state facts that ruin the point of the joke
Me - *facepalm*
whatdouthink96 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheGroundedAviator Me - Attempting to make a joke!
You - Have to state facts that ruin the point of the joke
Me - *facepalm*
whatdouthink96 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheGroundedAviator Me: Attempting to make a joke!
You: Have to state facts that ruin the point of the joke
Me: *facepalm*
whatdouthink96 3 weeks ago
@gtk4158a It was the British, not the English. "What insults the British the most is these Zulus were deemed inferior the The English in all ways". No, they Weren't.... WTF are you talking about??
slideharp1 6 months ago
@gtk4158a The Battle of Intombe (really no more than a skirmish) was an embarrassment. The officer in charge, Captain David Moriarty, had been given orders to take a proper defensive position; Moriarty failed to do so. He was the first to be killed that night. Lieutenant Henry Harward, Moriarty's second-in-command, grabbed a horse and bolted, abandoning his men to their fate.
ImperialistRunningDo 7 months ago
KRO
fstp13 7 months ago
@gtk4158a
very far from invicible? except from Islandhwa, the stupid commander's, the British only lost two men and 52 wounded. They never lost more than two men after Islandhwa.
Plus these Zulu's slaughtered the S.African tribes. Zulu's are native to CENTRAL Africa, not SOUTH africa, so yes they are inferior because they said S.Africa deseved to die "because their leader had a bad dream". This is highly believable as Zulu's are very zealous.
WolfytheWolf5667 7 months ago
@WolfytheWolf5667 "They [British] never more than two men after Isandlwana."
British losses Gingindlovu -- 11
Ulundi -- 13
Kambulla -- 29
Intombe -- 68
Hlobane -- 225
We won't mention losses at Eshowe, shall we? Most of those were caused by disease after the Zulu trapped the column there for two months.
May I suggest a good book on the Zulu War?
ImperialistRunningDo 7 months ago
@Tam1297
The British did not plunder Zululand at all, nor did we treat them as subhuman. After we beat them, we deposed the King and forced their chiefs to recognise British sovereignty over them. We did this through the use of contracts rather than the use of naked force. Such was our leniency with the Zulus that some of the Natal natives vowed never to fight again for the British, as they had done so partly for an anticipated post war looting spree rather than regional stability.
MrRealstreet 8 months ago
If they were outnumbered 16 to 1... how is that their greatest loss ever? Wouldn't it have been a much bigger loss if they outnumbered the enemy and STILL got the shit kicked out of them?
joegt123 8 months ago
If I saw all those Zulu warriors charge at me. I would have started running
Trollermao123 8 months ago
@Trollermao123 Thats because you are not a redcoat
11Cheesewaffles 8 months ago
and there was bodies of men evrywhere, screams of the dying and officers trying to sort the mess out, and then the sky went black, must have been horrific
chrisM33 9 months ago
The movie imho is great. I dont know why there's nothing about Younghusbond and his famous handshacking. And what the Zulu did.
giovamas 9 months ago
@giovamas No one knows if it just a myth or really occurred. Do you think they had time to stop and shake hands while under attack ?, i personally dont think it happened, feel they were fighting hard for there life's and got overwhelmed before they could do anything
chrisM33 9 months ago
@chrisM33 Yes u are rigth.. maybe it's just mythe or maybe it's true.. who knows what's happened in a soldier's mind closed to die? I read also that Younghusband's body was put in a shield.. a great honor .. Anyway, a part the myth. those men fougth very well and proud and deserved something in the movie (sorry my bad english but im italian)
giovamas 9 months ago
@giovamas No its cool mate, would have been nice if it did occur, but lots of myths still with this batle that are now impossable to tell if they are true or not. One thing the film did miss, was at the height of the battle a eclipse occured, the sky went earie dark, and in fact it upset the brits more then the zulus who thought it was a good omen, while for the brits it must have made the chaos even worse, think about it they were being overhwhelmed and found there retreat blockled
chrisM33 9 months ago
@chrisM33 Thanks mate! You are rigth! i read about eclypse.. it seems that sometimes nature makes something during a bloodbath.. i think about earthwake in Trasimeno battle.. big storm in Teutoburgo.. two disasters of another big army. And maybe there are other exemples!
giovamas 8 months ago
@Tam1297 SHAKA assimilated other tribes, like the Buthelezi (I met with Mangosuthu Gatsha Buthelezi in the late '70's btw). Dingane would in his paranoid moments decide to exterminate vassal tribes like the Cele.
As to the British treating their subjects as subhuman, don't you think that's something of a generalization? Did David Livingstone treat Africans as subhuman? God knows Stanley did, but not all of the British felt the same way.
ImperialistRunningDo 10 months ago
@Tam1297 Explain to me then. I don't see much difference between tribalism and Imperialism, except as a matter of scale. The Zulus shared the same beliefs as their neighbors and spoke a similar language. The British must have looked like they arrived from the moon.
I don't think the Saxons said "Let's take over Britain. They have lots of coal and I'm sure they're a good market for our manufactured goods." They probably said "let's take their gold and force them to pay Saxon geld."
ImperialistRunningDo 10 months ago
@Tam1297 "they former [Saxons] controlled their own territory..." Uh huh. After invading Britain from Germany and Denmark, then they made it their own. Sounds like the Zulus in that regard. A big difference is the Anglo-Saxon age lasted some 5 centuries, while the independent Zulu [choose one: kingdom/empire/caliphate/democratic republic] lasted just over 60 years.
ImperialistRunningDo 10 months ago
@Tam1297 There's nothing incoherent in my six posts - they just bother the hell out of you so you ramble on about anything that takes your fancy. 'Different Type of Empire'....that's a joke, right?
slideharp1 10 months ago
@Tam1297 Not necessary - you write enough rambling, disjointed nonsense for ten men. Besides, I already made my point. I don't keep repeating myself - I've posted six comments already. If you wish to write something for the sake of seeing it, then go ahead. But write them where it says 'respond to this video', don't need them in my inbox You don't have a clue, do you....Saxons, Picts!....get Real. Have a nice day.
slideharp1 10 months ago
@Tam1297 Not necessary - you write enough rambling, disjointed nonsense for ten men. Besides, I already made my point. I don't keep repeating myself - I've posted six comments already. You don't have a clue, do you....Saxons, Picts!....get Real. Have a nice day.
slideharp1 10 months ago
@Tam1297 Yes. In your mind, it's 'quite simple'.
slideharp1 10 months ago
@Tam1297...the Zulu Empire was bigger than Western Europe. Not an Empire? tell that to the Matebele:- As for the Saxons and Gaels, you clearly have No Frame of Reference. "Sharing the landmass"??!!...LMAO. Right back to what I said in the first place. You're saying the Zulu Empire was 'acceptable to other Africans" because they 'shared the same Landmass'!! i.e. they were 'black brothers' (not white), what school did you go to? BTW, all Europe was dominated by trade, like the entire world is now
slideharp1 10 months ago
@Tam1297..they are going to get a piece of the action with their new 'partners' who consider them sub-human. Dream on, Jack - China will own 90% of the world's copper - needed for wiring anything digital. Cobalt (look it up) also will be the Property of China. Schools and hospitals, the Brits did that as a matter of course, along with all the beautiful buildings you see in the former colonies. Explain the 'difference' between the Zulu Empire and the B.E. Saxons and Gaels? that's not an Empire!!
slideharp1 10 months ago
@Tam1297...good, at least you're not insulting my intelligence by refuting the fact that the 'Zulu Kingdom' was, in fact, a massive Empire. Destroyed the balance of life?, which was What? Africa's ass now belongs to China. Meet the new-boss. China has 'bought' all mineral rights to enormous areas such as Zaire/Congo, in return for 'building schools, hospitals etc, and will continue to do so 'til after you and I are dead. The Africans are gleefully taking this shafting with the impression that..
slideharp1 10 months ago
...and anyone who contends that a 'black' Empire was better for Africa than a 'white' emperor is an idiot. Ever heard of Napoleon Buonaparte?...Europeans found the idea of a European Emperor (i.e. white) a totally unacceptable idea. Naturally he was eventually neutralised, imprisoned and killed - after the death of millions and an orgy of destruction. The idea that a black African Conqueror and Emperor was 'acceptable' to Africans insults their intelligence.
slideharp1 10 months ago
@Tam1297 The Zulus had Conquered half of sub-saharan Africa with Extreme Brutality, or Military Efficiency, and other African tribes were terrified of who would be next on the list, i.e.other African tribes were shit-scared of becoming vassals of the Zulu Empire. This was Indeed a clash of two Empires. Why do you think there were tribes who allied themselves with the Brits?...the lesser of two evils if nothing else. The 'Zulu kingdom' you cite was a massive Empire forged by military might.
slideharp1 10 months ago
@slideharp1 "The Zulus had conquered half of sub-Saharan Africa." Not even close. But they WERE one of the largest, though I'd have to see if they were larger than the Songhai Empire in West Africa, for example.
But I would rather trust my clan to the British. They might steal my land, kill off all my cattle (like they did in Rhodesia), and saddle me with a hut tax but at least they wouldn't have me and all my people impaled like Shaka could.
ImperialistRunningDo 10 months ago
@ImperialistRunningDo You're right, of course, re: the size of the Z.E. I admit to havng a limited knowledge of the specific boundaries. I know of it as the most aggressive and rapidly-expanding, prob'ly because of the clash with the Boers and the British. I know practically nothing about the Songhai, but W.Africa being as large as it is different from Southern Africa, would have a very different history. Would the S.E. be the people who first began selling captives to the Portugese?, 1430's.
slideharp1 10 months ago
@slideharp1 I am embarrassed about how little I know about West Africa, but so much fell under a dark and sinister force. I'm referring to the French, of course. While I pride myself in my history, I really SUCK when it comes to languages. Much has been written about the great empires of East Africa but most in French, n'est-ce pas?
ImperialistRunningDo 10 months ago
@ImperialistRunningDo... I'll wiki it. Just realised I'm in a different time-frame - 15thc isn't the 19th. Re. The French and Leopold's Belgians, they both seemed to 'lose it' when they ventured into Africa.
slideharp1 10 months ago
In real life the firing line was like 200 metres from the camp, the soldiers were not close together but 4 or 5 metres apart, and there was no shortage of ammunition, but still a half decent film (not as good as zulu thoug ;))
TheAppleturnovers 1 year ago
The film makes the battle out as a complete annihilation of the British but in reality a lot of soldiers actually escaped, this helped to warn the defenders of Rorkes Drift downriver.
moleman9000 1 year ago
@moleman9000 I think only five imperial officers escaped. None of the soldiers in red tunics survived. Cetsweyo gave orders to kill the red soldiers, but let the civilians in black coats live. Many soldiers (like artillery)were in dark blue tunics. Most of the men who escaped were with the various Natal units.
ImperialistRunningDo 1 year ago
British Imperialism at its best.
00Billy 1 year ago
id put my brown trousers on if i was there!!!
leehowland375 1 year ago
The Scenes just before and including this really capture what a hopeless situation they was in.
pob3000tb 1 year ago
@pob3000tb Nine years earlier in the Battle of Sedan, French Gen Ducrot said "We have put ourselves in a chamber pot and now they are going to **** on us." Words I often use while war-gaming....
Durnford must have said something similar.
ImperialistRunningDo 1 year ago
now i'm probably just thinking out loud here but... WHY DIDN'T THEY USE THE F***ING CANNONS?
NathanH97 1 year ago
@NathanH97 They did. They only had two. But when you get outflanked, you can't point cannon in EVERY direction.
ImperialistRunningDo 1 year ago
Don't know much about Zulu history or for that matter African History...
go research, then comment!
isitshudeni
MasterBowyer 1 year ago
Since when was the WAR a defeat? We lost battles against the Zulu's yes. But the final hammer blow was at Rorke's Drift where the Welsh held their ground and forced the Zulu's back. We eventually invaded South Africa and Botswana. So i don't see how we could have lost the WAR? I'm just thirteen. Some of you lot need to do your homework before you go writing immature comments about a British defeat. We had the largest Empire the world has ever known. We will lose battles. But that's what happens.
scimitar121 1 year ago
@scimitar121 1) the "final hammer blow" was at Ulundi, when the last Zulu army was crushed and the capital burned. 2) Rorke's Drift was defended by the 24th Foot "The Warwickshires." They didn't become the South Wales Borders until AFTER the war was over. 3) Invading South Africa? WHAT? Where did you think the British were coming from? Mozambique? 4) 13? Well, you're off to a good start. Try to find the book "Zulu" by Saul David.
a0e0roberts 1 year ago
@scimitar121. You know your stuff for a 13 year old - good job, nice to know our kids still know their history!
Neo11111 1 year ago
What's with all the Anti-Britain comments?? I will admit there have been time's when Britain's actions have been questionable but then again the same could be said about every country. E.g. For France it was Napoleon, for Germany it was Hitler ect, ect.
As for the person who said that they were glad the British lost, just remember the people who had to die for that to happen. So still glad thousands of people had too die?? I would only be glad if it had never happened in the first place.
Drag0nsclaw2 1 year ago
@Drag0nsclaw2 For some reason, people seem to feel better about themselves if they can attack the behaviour of someone else's great-grandfathers. A mystery to me, but if you would tell me who YOURS were, I'll find something unkind to say. Lol.
The facts behind this war aren't what most people think they are. London did NOT want to go to war with the Zulu; Sir Bartle Frere started this almost single-handedly. Zululand was NOT annexed afterwards; Wolseley split it into 13 bits and walked away.
a0e0roberts 1 year ago
Here's is the thing, if the British massed thier troops to square, with good interior lines to distribute the ammo, using a perimeter obrstuction to slow the Zulus down, they would have wiped the Zulus out. The Zulu bodies whould have piled up so fast, that the Zulu bodies thenselves would have slowed down the charge. This is what you get when you underestimate your opponent.
johnnowa1953 1 year ago
@Thanos3007, good thing the British didn't lose WW2, or you'd be licking Nazi boot right now.
1giblesp 1 year ago
@1giblesp Yeah good thing the world wasnt controlled by the biggest monsters in history..... forget Britain...
NorthernerMatty123 1 year ago
this is sad how can men with GUNS get their asses whippe by ppl with wood just sad
blackgold161 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"this is sad how can men with GUNS get their asses whippe by ppl with wood just sad"
Yes, I always though Custer was a bit of a chump...
smoochym 1 year ago
The Zulus were scary as hell
pantsarewalking 1 year ago
Yes the brits made quiet a habit of useing other troops to clean up the mess they would make of things, australians saved their bacon on more than one ocassion in the first world war. And Montgomery's soldiers dismal performance in operation Goodwood in the 2nd world war proves sadly that they were not up to the task, should have stuck to subjucating tribes, they were good at that.
qeull 1 year ago
I'm glad the British lost!!!!!
Thanos3007 1 year ago
@Thanos3007
We beat the Zulua overall dumbass.
mwillis1000 10 months ago
Pity that machine gun still wasn't invented that days. Perhaps that might help British to avoid defeat.
Vimpel969 1 year ago
@Vimpel969 yeah they had gattling guns back then. good thing they didnt have them there
umidontno040394 1 year ago
@Vimpel969 there were gatling guns at the battle, they just wernt used
1234muffin 1 year ago
@1234muffin Chelmsford had one Gatling gun available, but sent it off with the right column, under Col. Pearson. The Gatling gun was used with effect at the Battle of Inyezane, so couldn't have been at Isandlwana.
There were cannons at Isandlwana, but no Gatling guns.
a0e0roberts 1 year ago
Worse military losd ever? sorry 30,000 japanese took 130000 limeys ozzies etc. in singapore
sernam116 2 years ago
@sernam116 What about the Phillipinesthe same year when the benighted McArthur put his tail between his legs and left his armies to rot in Japanese prisons
1middlesbrough 1 year ago
@sernam116 60 000 japs versus 120000 british troops in Singapore. Japs had aviation support, good logistics and etc. They just forced british to surreb=nder by bombing them each hour.
Vimpel969 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
zulu got nailed after this just a bunch of niggers with big lipps haha monkeys if he hadnt split his force we would have kicked their as and we did after this battle haha
scouse180 2 years ago
You seem to be yet another victim of our educational system judging from your poor grasp of the english language.
macnos 2 years ago
@scouse180 no he wouldn't have..... and dude? what the fuck is up with that rasict talk?? you a nazi or something?
Brampiescampie 2 years ago
barely a handful of soldiers made out of that valley alive, it was stupid leadership and confidence of their commanders that cause that defeat.
burd1234 2 years ago
Yeah, Chelmsford was an arrogant fool who got a lot of good, brave men killed.
Neo11111 2 years ago
ZULUUUUUUUUUUUUUU young british solider looking like he was about to pee in his pants.
FMA1109 2 years ago
british line destroyed all.
ryankassulke 2 years ago
Go Zulu! Kick their asses!
racecar2323 2 years ago
Nice constructive comment there. Are you one of those people who thinks war is "cool" and real bullets don't go thru real people.
Neo11111 2 years ago
no. I'm one of those who hates colonialism and imperialism and roots for any indigenous population fighting against it
racecar2323 2 years ago
That's fair enough but you should really be aware that the Zulus were an empire themselves and had expanded their lands too, occupying other African tribes. This is really 2 empires fighting each other. You'll notice even in the film that there are many blacks fighting with the British.
Further, this film is about ordinary soldiers who died for the mistakes of their superiors, so writing comments like that is quite insulting to their memory really.
Neo11111 2 years ago 28
wrong zulus are not an empire you seem to be confusing a kingdom with an empire how can you say that people who dont even have a capacity to even make swords empire holders empires are like rome or Macedonian or the parthians who conquer other countrys and you have standing armys and navys for the sole porpous for expansion its like saying that aztec indians where an empire
tebeda99 2 years ago
Who the hell are you to just write "wrong" about what I write? I'm sorry I didn't know you're a fully qualified historian who can't spell or punctuate. Whether they could make swords or not is irrelvant, they can still be an empire. They had a vast army for a start. And yes, the Aztecs were an empire, hence the name "Aztec Empire"; technology is irrelevant. The Aztecs had the same archaic weapons as their enemies, and they were the most powerful in the region at the time, just like the Zulus.
Neo11111 2 years ago 19
look man im just tryin to explain to you the definition of empire like you said it yourself they had power over a region not on the continent or even other african coutrys on your definition brazil is an empire because it exeercisez its power on other south american countrys if the zulus and aztecs are empire that what is not an empire at those ages tribes so you either live in a small tribal comunity or if you have large armies than your an empire
tebeda99 2 years ago
OK well fair enough I see your point; when I made the original post I was trying to point out that the Zulus were the dominant power in South Africa at the time, and had been expansionist themselves, in effect, building an empire for themselves by expanding their borders. Brazil keeps within its own boundaries, despite being very influencial, which is why I wouldn't describe it as an empire. The Aztecs were also expansionist, which why they can be seen as a empire too.
Neo11111 2 years ago
The definition of an empire is a nation built off the conquest of other nations, in that regard both the Aztecs and Zulus were empire, albeit technologically backward ones. Zulu dominion extended over many conquered peoples, regardless of if those conquered peoples are all currently found in South Africa and Zimbabwe, at one point they were independed before being gobbled up by a genocidal meglomaniac named Shaka.
Alcaldemb 2 years ago 3
@Neo11111 Right. And I say so as an amateur historian and wargamer.
It's especially annoying to hear how "wronged" the Aztecs were by the Spanish. The Aztecs were complete bastards, the indigenous peoples knew as much, and it was they and not the Spanish who exterminated them at the first opportunity. There's still a lingering hatred from the other tribes in Mexico towards the Aztecs, despite years of Marxists trying to build a "Mexica" ethnicity up and use it to play race games over there.
DrCruel 8 months ago
@Neo11111 A good point, and its one people should remember. The Zulu's were no saints either.
MikeyWesty666 1 year ago
@MikeyWesty666. Thanks for the support!
Neo11111 1 year ago
There were a lot of soldiers from India fighting for the crown, but none in Africa at this time that I can think of. Much later on in 1906 there was a Zulu uprising and Indians, including one Mohandas K Gandhi, assisted the British. Is that what you're thinking of?
a0e0roberts 2 years ago
wut didn't?
RetardedPickle 2 years ago
Low life fag
solardragon223 2 years ago
Lol how'd you come to that conclusion consiering i am actualy well educated and have a good job while at uni hmm yer proper low life that is. I would assume a chav living with mummy while binging with other hoodlums would be low life but you kno what whatever go ahead and judge someone you don't know. Ugh.. Grow up ty.
RetardedPickle 2 years ago
As Joseph Conrad said. Exterminate the brutes.
82abnoff 2 years ago
Badly organised defensive line. Should have been another victory for Queen Vic`s heroic troops. See "Rorkes Drift" a lot fewer white faces, but far superior battle lines drawn.
TheWhitehall 2 years ago
the look on that old blokes face at 0.05 ......brilliant.....said it all ...without saying anything......now that's good acting...
sheepsfoot2 2 years ago
"Usuthu!" means "Kill!" Ida been wtting my pants.
hoosieryank1967 2 years ago
"Usuthu?" this is what Encyclopedia Britanica has to say:
By the mid-1850s Cetshwayo was head of a young Zulu group known as the Usuthu. During a Zulu civil war in 1856, Cetshwayos Usuthu force defeated his rival and brother Mbuyazwes Gqoza group in a violent encounter at the Battle of Ndondakasuka.
a0e0roberts 2 years ago
Military History Illustrated magazine (from which I drew from) provided me the concept that uSuthu meant 'kill.' Perhaps they got it wrong...
hoosieryank1967 2 years ago
Could still mean kill. The Zulu kraal under Shaka was called Kwa Bulawayo meaning the place of the killing. Names have meanings. Maybe his group's name meant kill.
HaNavi512 2 years ago
lol gta think tho this film thousands of em charge at same time n one big sweep nothing could stop that, but in Zulu at rorkes drift they attack in waves of hundreds so it is easier to hold it back. They were lucky, these poor sods just got raided. lol
RetardedPickle 2 years ago
im sure some mounted heavy machine guns, an ac-130 spectre gunship and a couple of apache helicopters could stop it :D but i know what you mean, i was scared just watching the film haha
girthalmighty 2 years ago 2
what name of this film and date ?
vlad9vt 2 years ago
Zulu dawn and i think it was made in the 70's
Calam95 2 years ago
ACTUALLY,Sir,please note that the annual commemoration ceremonies in Mexico and Eire for the members of the "SAN PATRICIOS",ex US Army men who had deserted from the US Army,to fight with their co-religionists in Mexico,could also be considred to be an assertion of Sovereignity,as the Mexican citizens in question were considered to be still American.THWARTED to the North,the WEST and South alone were left as targets for what could perhaps be called "IMPERIAL EXPANSION",or A PLACE IN THE SUN!!!
caswallon1415 2 years ago
ACTUALLY,the War of 1812 can be considered a victory by everyone, although the side whose Government had to flee from their Capitol,and watch the "WHITE HOUSE2 being burned,might perhaps have been more inclined to consider that a Peace Treaty might,perhaps, be a GOOD THING.
caswallon1415 2 years ago
Not a victory to everyone. Spain lost Florida. The Natives lost Tecumseh, and all hope of an all-tribe federation.
a0e0roberts 2 years ago
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!!!
LordWellington15 2 years ago
For the Republic!
Augments 2 years ago
Modern day US troops are probabl the worst in the world, they are tactically retarted. I did work experience in the british army, i heard stories from the sergeants about how dumb and out of shape the us troops were, and about all the the things british troops do the them, e.g. cutting there laces while there asleep! Remeber, the US army has killed many allied troops in iraq and Afgahanistan.
Burnzi2 2 years ago
Exactly. You "heard" stories. It doesn't mean they are true. I "heard" the same things about British troops. However, when I actually served w/ them I found out most of those stories were absolute "bollocks." You're an idiot if you believe everything Tommy the Limey or Billy the Yank have to say. Finally, although its popular for Britons (and others) to label us Yanks as trigger-happy hot heads who kill thier allies, keep in mind EVERY country has had friendly fire incidents in the GWOT.
fo694013 2 years ago
America "won two wars"? Quite apart from the nonsense that is, let's not forget that America entered the war(s) out of pure self-interest. By the time it finally decided to join the fray, Australian divisions (for instance) had already been fighting for three years! In fact they then went on to hand the Japanese their first land defeat of World War II. In World War I, the Americans did not seriously engage the Germans until the very LAST year of the war!
Veneil 2 years ago
Please note that,as Yoko Ono wrote in the "Daily Mail" newspaper many years ago, American Sanctions against Japan inevitably meant that Japan had no option BUT to attack America, and that Hitlerian Germany and Japan had a DEFENSIVE Treaty ONLY. However, Hitler declared war on America, so America had little option but to go to war in Europe also. The priority was Germany due to ATOMIC research,so it was, as ever, self-interest by the USA,that dictated Policy,or, no European War.FAIR enough!!!
caswallon1415 2 years ago
gyxscott
What? In the war of 1812 the U.S went to Canada for reconn, all the battles occurred in the U.S. i.e. the battle of New Orleans English losses 2,332 U.S losses 314. WWII England was given deep discount on supplies bought...From America, because your industrial base sucked...What happened at Dunkirk? U.S. had greater troops, supplies and commanders most importantly won more battles...Next time learn history from something other than patrotic propoganda
tucson316 2 years ago
Britain always wins the last battle???
I am American, we opened up a can of whooped ass on Britain and won two wars, then saved their assed in two World Wars...Truth sucks doesn't it.
tucson316 2 years ago
Won two wars? I only count one(due to the french).
The war of 1812 surely can't count as a usa victory, when their damn goal in the war was the conquest of canada.
USA barely saved anyone in WWI .
Also a common misconception is that the usa saved britain WWII(france yes,britain no).Despite popular belief ,britain bought the supplies through their own money(so excludes the supplies as aid).
Tuscon316 next time learn history from something other than patrotic propoganda....
gyxscott 2 years ago 3
Actually, sir we had many goals in the war of 1812. However, the main goal was not the conquest of Canada. The main goal was to assert our sovereignty. The British had been stopping US flagged ships and impressing Americans to serve on thier warships. In some cases, they actually hanged expatriated British military deserters who were American citizens. Since, we asserted our soveriegnty by stopping the impressions, we consider the war of 1812 a victory.
fo694013 2 years ago
Vietnam....... enough said...... Plus you have a really frustrating habit of joining world wars a few years late......
gport7 2 years ago
Over a million Vietnamese dead only 56.000 U.S. dead, Many restrictions on the U.S.! did you know we didnt even attempted to attack the north nor Cambodia, And by the wars end the Vietcong was almost wiped out after the Tet attack, and the north was also severely weaken, if not for America wanting a end to a meaningless war we would have won in another year or so!!...THATS A FACT!
TheLightningKing 2 years ago
Hey, LightningKing! How goes?
The War in Nam was probably before your time, but I can remember when we INVADED Cambodia in April of '70. Nixon announced it on TV. A wave of protests in the US lead to the killing of 4 students in Kent State, and the wounding of 4 others at U of Buffalo.
We bombed the bejeebers out of North Vietnam and mined their harbor at Haiphong. That is an "attack," no?
But we agree that the war was meaningless; you can't fight for democracy while propping up dictators.
a0e0roberts 2 years ago
Its not too bad! Although you do have points I think you overstating the U.S. operations there, There wasnt no real invasions of Cambodia, we did illegal operations in there and only after we got caught did nixon admit it to the public, we werent at war with that country. also while there was bombing it was mostly focused south of the border. they didnt have to much to bomb up north, the mining yes but NV didnt possess a major naval threat! but you r right no doubt about the point of the war.
TheLightningKing 2 years ago
One of the most remarkable battles ever fought, both sides acted faultlessly regardless of why they were there. The fact that when it was over, a Zulu force remained that was enough to wipe any trace of the english from the field SALUTED them instead says everything.
When soldiers were soldiers, not hiding behind smart weapons and afraid to get their hands dirty:)
ViolentRunning 2 years ago
Well that's true if you ignore the fact that the Zulus wiped out a British army including the sick and wounded, taking no prisoners.
What you're refering to is Rourke's Drift which is where the remnants made their last stand, and superior weaponry showed in the confines of a enclosed space.
Out in the open without artillery the army was destroyed.
But as has been said, in all her wars, England always seems to win one battle, the last one.
ianclivewright 2 years ago
Like so many on you tube your facts are all over the place. The zulus didn't have "100,000s" of men - their entire army was around 30-40,000 men, absolute maximum, and many of them were old. It was Britain that had 100,000s of men available and an industrial empire's might to use to fight with. To say zulus had no respect for life is just plain ignorance. They had a highly sophisticated belief sytem which involved "quaka" - a purifying ritual. I suggest YOU learn your history before you post.
219970 2 years ago
Well Britain might have had this, and Britain might have had that, is true, but they didn't have all that on the field of battle at that particular time. The British were used to fielding small forces against native troops, relying on bravery, superior weaponry and discipline for success.
Not for the last time, this was a bit of a disaster.
Although lets be honest, the Zulus were cruel, vicious and nasty savages, well disciplined too. Lets not paint them whiter than white?
ianclivewright 2 years ago
The fact that you are unable to have a discussion with someone else and cope with them disagreeing with you without resorting to abuse to belittle them really says a lot more about you than me. As for raping, murder, pillage etc - I hardly think this is the domain of blacks only. Enough white serial killers, rapists, murderers, criminals to go round too. Just like blacks. The difference is I'm well-educated, informed and not a hateful racist biggot. Go on, say something outrageous again, wow....
219970 2 years ago
uSuthu !!
Ngobamakosi 2 years ago
the 2nd world war put an end 2 tha british empire ,after the war britain did not have the resources 2 govern large countrirs so far away, this is why britain gave independance to so many colonies after tha war you see.
loushky619 2 years ago
someone should upload this movie:)
ultradumbass 2 years ago
well the british just were never good fighters. thats why their "empire" phailed so hard.
Fishdogpigsquirrel 2 years ago
How did they get an empire in the first place? And how for 100 years was this empire the largest the world had EVER seen, covering 1/3 of the world's population and 1/4 of its land surface? Oh yes, you must be right, the reason for this success was Britain's inability as a military power. Good point. I see where you're coming from. And the culture (inc the language you struggle to speak) lasted in all the countries where the empire apparently "Phailed" (whatever "phaling" is)
219970 2 years ago
jesus..you didnt have to be so tight assed you elitest prick.
Fishdogpigsquirrel 2 years ago
By being elitist, I presume you mean I am right and know more than you/the other poster. I'm happy with that - being in the elite of something is a great thing to strive for. As for the comment, it was a reply to a patronising post. I admire intelligence and being right, but cannot abide or respect those who pretend to know more than others but actually haven't read/got a clue about it. The poster deserved what he got. Get over it.This is a discussion on the Zulu War not petty insults like yours
219970 2 years ago
yeah. you are probably right but a little word for the wise, dont run about making everyone else look stupid for your own benefit. you are not superior to anyone. you are just a guy who cant find his place in the world except behind oxfords doors.
Fishdogpigsquirrel 2 years ago
Eh? Who's more sad, me for making one comment to correct someone's arrognace on one subject on youtube? Or you for getting so obsessed about me that you make a personal judgments based on nothing whatsoever than the fact I went to a particular university. So much for not finding a place behind Oxford's doors, I am currently a practising lawyer, so I guess I made the transition into the real world OK! But thanks for the concern, it's really very touching. Bless your jealousy-ridden cotton socks x
219970 2 years ago
Im not jealous of you because I like having friends :)
Fishdogpigsquirrel 2 years ago
LOL from your profile "I'm a hard core gamer. (world of warcraft, fallout 3, Fable II, Halo 3, Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Beer pong *hell yeah*) I play the guitar and I like shooting shit."
And you say I AM THE ONE WHO HAS NO LIFE OR FRIENDS?!!!
Hilarious!
219970 2 years ago
and from what you have said here, im guessing you dont have any friends because everyone you meet notices how much of a douche bag you are. secondly, i didnt say you didnt have a life..
Fishdogpigsquirrel 2 years ago
This it-today is the 130th anniversary
fokjock 3 years ago
Well if you've read so much about history, why are you unaware the the British Empire was usually benigh in its rule of other countrie.
For you to dismiss it as "settlers who slaughter" removes any credibility in your writings.
fokjock 3 years ago
The British killed Zulu wounded and took no prisoners either - this was the pattern from Rorke's Drift through to the end of the war. So did the British have 0 respect for life? As for the sending wave after wave of warriors to test the firepower, I think you have watched "Zulu" too many times - this is a myth and there is no evidence for it. Zulu warriors were far too valuable to be thrown away like that. Don't believe Hollywood - it's good TV but not good history!
219970 3 years ago
Going Good but ya small Gf white azz aint
WowGraze 3 years ago
jimmydice711
I know my history , I have read more books than you have seen in your life.
what I said has nothing to do with history, its just whenever the arrogant mass murderers, being the British or American settlers who slaughtered
native Americans ,were cut down , to me its a day of celebration . got it. Same for Fucking Israeli Nazis.
sbijan666 3 years ago
yes, for books read "comics"
fokjock 3 years ago
fokjok
No, never touched them , even when I was a kid
sbijan666 3 years ago
Them Zulus killed the fucking arrogant, thieving Brits pretty good ha ? enjoyed the massacre.
sbijan666 3 years ago
Lesson 1. You can have it free as it's Christmas. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to learn basic English skills. That means being able to write in a way that isn't reminiscent of a ten year old. "Them Zulus"? "killed...the Brits good?". Oh dear. As for your attempted point, I think you will find the Zulus also had a history of war and taking other people's land. They wiped out all the competition tribes under Shaka Zulu. But I doubt if the truth is of any interest to you.
219970 3 years ago
To 219970
Since you think you are the highest authority on every subject , I have to inform you that my
writing style was one hundred percent intentional and regardless of how vicious the Zulus were toward their fellow man I will always admire them for that massacre of British blood sucking insects.
sbijan666 3 years ago
That makes it even worse. Whatever you think, in the real world if you want to be taken seriously, you need to be able to speak and/or in a manner that doesn't undermine what you have to say. The sad thing is that if you sound like a simpleton, people will ignore what you have to say (even if it's a good point). As to your point, I see you are from the US. Quick to criticise the UK? Shall we talk about slavery, civil rights abuses and the Indians' land being stolen and treaties ignored, then?
219970 3 years ago
The left horn attacked through the Dongas (gullies) thought impassable by the British. It was Lord Clemsford's fault for splitting his force. Then the smaller force tried to defend too large a perimeter, and the ammo in boxes. Notice in Zulu Dawn, the perimeter is kept small and the ammo is constantly distributed. The battle was so quick that Chetswayo's brother missed it, so he headed to Rorke's Drift to gain some glory. He retreated because Clemsford's army was fast approaching.
geezzerboy 3 years ago
Oh dear. I take it you haven't read much. Catweyo's brother didn't "miss" the battle, he was held in reserve deliberately with the older warriors. The ammo theory has been heavily disproved with research from the battlefield. And by the time Chelmsford's force returned to Rorke's Drift, the Zulus were exhausted anyway after hours of fighting. Perhaps go and study it a bit more?
219970 3 years ago
There is a recent book, (sorry I've forgotten the title), but it has the Zulu side of the battle. The right horn, commanded by Chetswayo's brother went west around the mountain to cut the road to Rorke's Drift. The bull's head attacked the line of Martini-Henry rifles, the first breech loaders. The Zulu commander was about to call off the attack when he notice the rate of fire falling off, (due to the ineffective ammo supply), so pressed forward with the loins.
geezzerboy 3 years ago
Anybody know the zulus casualties? Im sure they got butt fondled hard too.
DevilDog420 3 years ago
Estimates vary, there are no reliably accurate sources for Zulu casualties during the war, but...at Isandlwana somewhere between 1000-3000 Zulu dead (personally, I think 1500 is a good guess) and a similar number wounded. Many of the wounds would have proved fatal 'cos the Zulus wouldn't have had the means to deal with massive trauma caused by large calibre bullets. Very heavy losses whatever the actual figures...definitely a Phyrric victory.
digglyda 3 years ago
A BS fantasy
LER77 3 years ago
May I remember to you all that today exists the EU?
mostrojoe25 3 years ago
how could i see a live one,my grandfather shot them all
piousmulvey27 3 years ago
muiris ni brosnachain is ainm dom,agus ni maith liom an sasanach scum,tiochadh ar la
piousmulvey27 3 years ago
900 dead redcoats,well done the zulu,why don't you proud loyal subjects check out the ira,o yeah forgot we kicked your blue,inbred royal familys ass,your ancestos were murdering extremists,hell bent on world domination,remind you of anyone? o yeah hitler,we have a picture of a dead black and tan in our sheebeen
piousmulvey27 3 years ago
Get a life man, like youv'e ever seen a walking, talking black and tan. Somebody watch "michael Collins" too many times. And you people were terrified of black and tans in 1920, the same way you tremble at the sound of "SAS" these days.
airshooter72 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You side with the nigger...poor irishmen
lasdhkfdslhdlshaf 3 years ago
Nice to see you're writing your comments in English. How come you don't use Gaelic? Nobody would know what you were bleating on about if it wasn't for the English language. You indignant prick...
digglyda 3 years ago
diggy,
if you are in England you speak arabic, dont you? Englanistan. That is the biggest defeat in english history, giving up your country voluntarily.
rothaic 3 years ago
It's not Englanstan, though, is it? Less than 5% of the population is Muslim. Hardly "giving up" the country, now, is it?!
219970 3 years ago
Wow, you got fucking owned there. "Englanistan"... that is so true.
makokun9 3 years ago
Nearer 580 actually. As for the IRA, they have been totally defeated and forced to come to the table to talk.They have realised that 30 years of blowing up women and children did them no good and got them nowhere, other than to alienate world opinion against them and lose support.The likes of Gerry Adams and co. realised this, and realised that they couldn't win by force.They realised they could get more concessions through talks. So much for your IRA then.Anyone who praises killing kids is sick
219970 3 years ago
I agree. I like how after the 9/11 attacks, the IRA was like...."Ok fuck it we dont want to be associated with those kinda terrorists because we will be total wiped out and hell will rain down on us"
lol
The2ndAmendmentGuy 3 years ago
My ancestors fough tin this battle.. Mthutuba Mkhwanazi.. Moved to durban and was awarded with land for his heroics..
mkwapower 3 years ago
I'd like to hear more. How did he survive this? Both sids took heavy losses.
a0e0roberts 3 years ago
just under 900 British soldiers died at the The Battle of Isandlwana
robmunro1989 3 years ago
biggest defeat of their prestige because the vat majority of their opponents were armed with spears.
jumpingchicken69 3 years ago
"Causing the British empire's worst military loss ever. And also for a modern day army."
WRONG
robmunro1989 3 years ago
I think what he meant was worst defeat by a modern army by native troops, who gives shit?
jumpingchicken69 3 years ago