In the 1950s my father used to frequent a pub in Wiltshire where an ex-soldier aged over 100 also drank. He'd been a professional soldier and fought in the Boer Wars, the Zulu war and then later WWI. He described how in one of the battles against the Zulus there were so many coming to attack and banging their shields rhythmically that the stones on the ground were jumping long before they could be seen or heard. Enough to make one's blood run cold, I should imagine.
A young British officer escaped from this battle, his name was Smith-Dorian and he went on the be a general in WWI. Just think of the changes he saw ! From red coats to airplanes, cavalry charges to tanks.
This and Waterloo are the only times I feel truly immersed in the true scale of these engagements. Real people real costumes will always look and feel more real then CGI battles
See the Russian version of "War and Peace" done in the 1960's especially the Battle of Borodino. All done with the Russian Red Army. It's a 4 part movie and total of 7 hours long. Lots of detail. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_and_Peace_(film_series)
This battle took place in 1879. Up until 1871, British officers still purchased commissions, meaning that many high ranking officers most likely had bought their way into the officer corp. This meant that they were not necessarily officers because they were promoted due to merit or education, but because they came from rich families.
I've read in Col. Snook's book on Rorke's Drift that Color Sgt. Bourne was offered a commission after the battles, but was unable to accept because he couldn't afford it. If commissions were no longer being purchased after 1871, could that have referred to outfitting himself befitting an officer?
@@retriever19golden55 I know that all the way till ww1 (and perhaps beyond that) British officers privately purchased almost every element of their kit from boots, uniform, and leather equipment to their service revolver and sword.
I am South African. Upon my visit to Isandlwana I stood on the slopes of the "koppie", the white stones marking the British graves scattering the hillside. The energy there is palpable. You can feel a tangible loneliness and desolation there....very sad....as with "Ngcome" (Blood river) (Bloed Rivier)....
I have been there and Blood River, also S African and agree. Spion Kop and Isandlwana are the most haunting battle grounds I have been to. Blood River not so much to me.
I'd like to see that place if I ever travel. I would also like to see the Little Bighorn battlefield in Montana. These events were the among the last tribal battles which one over modern armies of the time.
Never underestimate ones opponent. The Zulu were very brave and tenacious fighters. This battle was a massacre of an entire regiment of British Soldiers. Then they went after Rorke's Drift that was a great battle and victory by a small number of British Soldiers. 💪🏼🙏🏻✨
LOL the British were not victorious at Rourke's Drift. They were all slaughtered. The British public were impressed at their valor in the face of certain death, and a number of Victoria Crosses were awarded after the battle - every single one posthumously, since everyone was dead.
@@SuperMariusMaximus i don't know where you learned about Rorke's Drift? I must inform you that you are quite wrong. The battle of Rorke's Drift January 22-23 1879. Saw the British with a garrison of approx 150 officers and men. Fight a Zulu force of upwards of 4,000 warriors. The British losses were 17 killed and 10 wounded. The Zulu losses were approx 500 killed. After two days of fierce battle. The Zulu's withdrew from Rorke's Drift Due to the Great victory by the British garrison at Rorke's Drift. The Victoria Cross was awarded to 11 of the British Defenders of Rorke"s Drift. That is an overwelming victory by the British Soldiers. That is the true history of the Battle of Rorke's Drift. 💪🏻🙏🏻✨
There's two great ironies about this scene: 1. The British did not fight in tight groups as depicted here. Instead they were thinly dispersed across a wide area, severely reducing the amount of firepower they could unleash at a given moment. If they had been arranged as seen here, their volleys would have been far more effective. 2. The Zulus were smart fighters who were fully aware of the British superiority in armaments. Therefore, they did not attack in massive human waves, but rather advanced tactically in relatively small groups, using cover and concealment where possible to reduce the effect of British gunnery as they closed with them (of course many were still killed in the actual assaults). If they had simply all come forward in a huge formation, their casualties would have been far higher. Basically, the movie's depiction of the battle is what you'd expect to see if the British had won instead of the defeat they actually suffered.
Dick Chappy Where is your 6k figure from for the Zulus? All sources I've ever seen quote a figure of around 1000-3000 Zulu casualties, in other words, roughly comparable to what the British suffered. Also, their losses were fairly high because despite outmaneuvering the British force, they were still going up against trained troops with repeating rifles and artillery. Obviously they were going to lose a lot of men whether they won or not. Note that the ~1500 British dead represented almost their entire force. So it's not just a case of one army losing 1500 and another losing maybe 3000. It case of one army suffering almost 90% casualties vs the other taking about 15%. It means the British lost hard . . .
ancalites Actually, this is a fairly accurate representation of the battle, much more so than in "Zulu" where the mass attacks were inaccurate. As shown the Zulus cleverly used folds in the ground to approach the British camp in large numbers. The British also fought as companies grouped together so that's right as well. Also the numbers used in the film seem to be much smaller than the actual numbers in the battle with about 200-300 British, there were 1,500, and about 2,000-3,000 Zulu extras when there was 25,000.
Dick Chappy The Brits only won because they used missionaries to infiltrate and decimate the Zulu's from within - divide and control, then eventually win. The Brits could never have beaten the Zulu's otherwise.
With enough ancient warrior units it is possible to take a city, you would need hundreds and thousands of warriors (I call it the Soviet Strategy, Strength in numbers)
Gawds I love these older movies. Simply because there is *NO CGI*, every single one of those men are real. No director is looking at it going "Oh add in a few hundred more Zulu over here..."
Actually no. There was some "practical effects" trickery, where they used dummies and cardboard cutouts for some of the long shots to bulk out the numbers. But you're right, no CGI (it hadn't been invented yet)...
Great sweeping epic with a staggering cast. No cgi junk here and the accuracy in firearms and uniforms is as good as it gets. A tribute to heroism on both sides and to a sense of duty.
“As good as it gets” smh why is the infantry carrying the cavalry carbine version of the Martini Henry and why are the cavalry carrying the full length infantry version?
@@SimplyZero it was about the right time for many older men to have served in the second war Sir Michael Caine served in Korea as part of his national service I believe
oh its never crazy for me, if the old romans could muster a Legion fifteen to twenty thousand strong and co ordinate them on march and in battle then a film with a few thousand extras with modern radios and film cameras and phones to ring up the ones who are late aint surprising. It would surprise me more if they were incapable of doing that.
Visited this battlefield last year, a very moving experience. There was'nt a sound, no wind, no bird song, no crickets. Just trying to imagine what had taken place there made me feel very humble.
ed curant Oh really, I mean it is not like the British had superior technology and better weaponry while the Zulus were stuck with wooden stakes and cow hide shields.
This is a Great Movie with great actors and action! It also gives good honor and credence to the strategy of the Zulus under Cetswayo. Always felt this movie was terribly underrated.
I know those harp on the British strategy depicted but the panoramic views taken filming are unmatched. This and Waterloo are certainly go to movies as I love focusing on a random soldier in the background just for a different feel.
This is what happens when you hugely underestimate your enemy and see them as a joke. As Peter O' Tooles character does. The worst defeat a technogical superior army has suffered by technogical inferior one. But the british also had the tactic that secured them a empire... The volley fire. And at Rorkes drift, it was displayed with devastating effect. The british lost at Isandlwana because they underestimated the Zulus and the Zulus lost at Rorkes drift because they underestimated the british.
Also the Zulus had the overwhelming numbers of thousands, whereas the British were limited to about 200 to 300. The battle was also out in the open with no convenient cover, except for trenches and that wasn't enough.
At Isandlwana the british force were stronger than it was at Rorkes drift. But true, the Zulu force was still massively outnumbering the british. The british force at Isandlwana was around 1000 - 1500 At Rorkes drift it was about as low as 300 (maybe even as low as 150) Zulu forces was at 15.000 - 20.000 strong. At Rorkes drift it was a force of 4000 Zulus. Also, at Rorkes drift, the Zulus prefered tactic the horns of the buffalo was rendered ineffective, which also contributed highly to the Zulus loss at Rorkes drift. Unlike here, where it was highly useful.
@@Kitiwake It's bound to happen when you've fought everyone, everywhere at least twice. Some of those fights are going to be losses. What's remarkable is how many of them were wins.
The British Army had suffered its worst defeat against an indigenous at The Battle of Isandlwana. What the British force did the next few days at Rorke's Drift was just incredible.
Lord Chelmsford was hated in Horse Guards, but he had friends in Buckingham Palace. When he returned after the Zulu War, he was promoted to Lt. General in 1882, and full general in 1888.
kparc Parc They were surrounded entirely and surrender was impossible unless they wanted to he tortured. Animals always fight incredibly hard when defending themselves and backed into a corner into a life or death situation. Had the British not been surrounded entirely and attacked by people that were ferocious in battle then they might have loss. You should never blatantly surround an enemy that most likely will not surrender due to you treating prisoners like shit or not taking prisoners. That's a tactic that's pretty well known but usually never realized. Boxing your enemy in makes them much more dangerous. Still impressive that they managed to survive for so long against seemingly impossible odds and is inspiring but the zulus could have wiped them out still but were ordered to retreat since they weren't supposed to attack to begin with and used poor tactics.
@@hyacinthlynch843 Yup! The film also does not condone racism, even though at the time of this film being made that was absolutely fine. I'm pretty sure some people even got angry that the in the film the zulus won at islandawanda and not the british
@@MrBigBoy1245 Yes.The fact that an advanced British fighting force was defeated by Zulu warriors, with primitive weapons, probably irked some Brits when this movie was released.
@@blackkite65 It was the Rothschild's desire that the hegemony of strong Africans, Asians, Eurasians, and the Russ be made weak to be made more pliable and amiable towards being dispersed in later generations. It has always been their desire to send forth these races into white societies thus weakening the West. The Rothschilds are Zionists, their intentions have never been for the good of Western nations but all for their so called greater purpose of bringing forth prophecy towards end times. They have worked as leaders in a coalition of Zionist Christians and Zionist Jews alike towards the goal of the Jews seeing their Messiah (who the Christians think is the eventual Anti-Christ) and the Christians seeing that as a final sign of the eventual coming of Jesus Christ's return. They're fooled by the Devil though. As it was written and as it has been said, that neither the hour may be chosen nor the hand of God may be moved save but for only him. It is a great trick of the Devil that makes mere mortals think they can have any effect on such things in or with God's favor. Zionist Christians are not real Christians and Zionist Jews are not real Jews. Woe to them both, for they have forsaken all of humanity and the true God. True history when sifted through finely enough can back this easily.
Lucky enough to have stayed in the lodge looking over the battlefield. Amazing experience. White cairns mark the fallen. Last British soldier to die was in a small cave on the higher ground, you can see the bullet holes where the Zulus were shooting at him. Went on to visit Rourke’s Drift, they have marked out where the mealie bags defence wall was - not as big as you would imagine and the lay of the land vastly different to the film.
Did you feel the presence of the fallen. It must have been an extremely spiritual experience. I believe those who died in extremely violent circumstances never left that place.
Yo@peterware6115 there's a difference between rocks and bags mealie meal aka corn for one rocks r harder than bags bruh# bags of grain isn't going too protect you from Rifle bullets/Spears
The failure to secure an effective defensive position, the poor intelligence on the location of the main Zulu army, Chelmsford's decision to split his force in half, and the Zulus' tactical exploitation of the terrain and the weaknesses in the British formation, all combined to prove catastrophic for the troops.
About 20 years ago they did an archology dig on the sight of this battle . They found many bent screws from the ammunition boxes . A screw driver was needed to open them . In desperation the soldiers had used their rifle butts to force them open, when none was available . Where these were found , it was possible to work out where the troops stood. They were not as shown here . But in a line about 20 paces apart .
After an Earthquake in Mexico tons of food & supplies were delivered in cans but no can openers. The moon astronauts were unable to take off because they needed a long thin screw driver to reset a circuit breaker.
Yes the defensive line was too far forward diluting the firepower advantage add to that the fact that after prolonged firing the martini cartridges would expand and have to be manually removed and the disaster is guaranteed.
@@AndrewAustinFrustrated the cartridges did expand but the expansion of the metal in the actions on the rifles was the problem. Cartridges naturally expand when they are fired and this is allowed for in the extraction process. Competition shooters who reload their own ammo call them"fire formed brass"and after trimming to case length prefer them to new cases. Metal expands when heated and I imagine by the time "fire at will" was given those actions were quite hot but if they were having extraction problems it is more likely it was from fouling from the black powder used at the time and the heated actions combined. I'm a reloader and a metalworker and I'm just trying to pass along a little knowledge I have on the subject.
Andrew Austin That was Durnford deciding to make a last stand some one mile out. Pulleine was obliged to support him and had to keep his infantry companies out there. If Durnford didn't decide to make his stand so far out, Pulleine would have undoubtedly pulled his infantry companies in closer. He wouldn't have had a choice. The Zulu left horn would have threatened the rear of the firing line. However, Durnford halting the Zulu left horn for a while actually ultimately lead to the battle being lost. That is the irony.
The ammunition boxes and bent screws are a red herring. A screwdriver was not needed to open ammunition boxes at all. YT channel Britishmuzzleloaders South Africa series demonstrates with an example of such an ammunition box from this period which was easily opened with a strike by rifle butt to the top of these boxes and this was very well known to the infantry who used them. Ammunition only became an issue when the firing line was cut off from camp supplies by the enveloping right and left horns of the Zulu battlefield manoeuvres.
@@jan-lucam5977 yes our culture will never die in South Africa Zulus are the strongest when it comes to cultural practice,the music,language and traditional attire
My name is 'Frankie'. Handed down from my 2nd great uncle. He signed up to serve with The SOuth Wales Borderers. No doubt because he had heard of their derring do deeds in Africa and they came on a recruitment drive to my city of Liverpool in 1916. He wa 16 and a half. He fought and lived thru the Somme. He died two weeks before the end of the war. As a South Wales Borderer. From Mile End. Liverpool. My father was named francis in his honour...and then myself. Then my eldest son. I am proud to carry his name x
@@nathangarland9453 that reminds me of a line from Waterloo, "Gin up boys, get it while you can, the french will have it out of you any minute anyway", but gin instead of tead because y'know, soldiers instead of officers haha
@@howardthealien2606 in the battle of waterloo, the soldiers are having gin in the middle of the battle, and the offices make toast with brandy right before. It just reminded me of it, sorry if it doesn't make sense to you
Something I see in a lot of movies from the last 3 decades is that the heroes, or at least the defenders, meet the enemy with stone cold defiance. Showing absolutely no fear and ready to die where they stand no matter the odds. Here the British soldiers and officers consistently look like they're about to piss themselves and it makes the battle feel much more immersive.
The 24th stood their ground and fought bravely to their end. The Zulus own accounts of this Battle says the British firing line was professional to the last man and they all died as warriors. The firing line was made up of veterans of the 24th and they showed no fear in the thick of Battle according to the victorious Zulu, many of 24th made brave but futile bayonet charges into the Zulu regiments.
@Oscar Hampson I've no doubt that some veterans may look 'a bit worried' when faced with a determined enemy, and some may desert...Being only human. Yet, Looking a bit worried and looking like you are about to piss yourself are very different. The 24th were perhaps a bit worried but fought through any apprehensions they might have had to perform with professionalism. This is a good definition of bravery. Men described as looking like they were about to piss themselves would likely be no use under pressure and would likey become a cowardly rabble very quickly. We have reliable accounts of the battle from the British camp survivors who observed the British firing lines defeat and the accounts from the victorious Zulu's and which matched in detail and do not contradict the other. Both accounts reveals the British firing line fought a well ordered retirement trying to get back to their camp supplies. That could only be done by men who did not panic or outwardly show fear. After the Zulu's cut off the ammunition supplies the British formed squares and fought bravely to their ends, many of whom shook hands with their compatriots and bayonet charged the Zulu's in a glorious last stand. Not something you could do if 'pissing' yourself with fear. They were warriors whom the Zulu 's respected. To portray soldiers, for dramatic effect, as looking likey to piss themselves in battle is fine. But to portray specific soldiers like this when it is known to be historically inaccurate is no less than a slur on these brave mens characters.
@The Richest Man In Babylon You mean that in the comment where I used the word movie, in the first sentence no less, I wasn't actually aware that I was talking about movies?
Unfortunately ‘history’ shows we are forever repeating the mistakes of the past, despite learning of them. Often makes me wonder how thick are dolphins & chimps if we evolved above them.
@3:09 I know they tried to get as many extras as realistically possible but in reality there was probably 6 or 7 times the number of Zulu warriors. There was c. 15,000 warriors in 3 battle groups so the real number of Zulu would cover the whole screen until the horizon that's visible plus 2 more battle groups on the wings that wouldn't be visible in this shot. Crazy..
@The Richest Man In Babylon Impi just translates to “war” which the English chose to call amaZulu regiments that. The actual Zulu word for Regiments is “amabutho” and just “ibutho” for just 1 regiment.
The film does its best to throw you in there but in reality, it would certainly test your spirit... and those men knew exactly what the Zulu were, unlike many on here. Yes, the Zulu were formidable warriors, a warrior nation - ravaging Southern Africa and enslaving - would have likely taken over if it were not stopped.
There's an amazing book call Washing of the Spears, which gives an incredible amount of background to the participants on both sides of Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift.
Morris' Washing of the Spears was considered definitive at the time, but Col. Mike Snook, a serving officer of The Royal Regiment of Wales (formerly the 24th, the regiment depicted in the films), stationed in South Africa who calls a number of Zulu his friends, wrote a pair of books: How Can Man Die Better (Isandlwana), and Like Wolves on the Fold (Rorke's Drift). He has the military experience to decode the clues about the action, and the friendships with Zulu people to interpret the primary sources. I believe he is much more accurate than Morris. Morris has Pulleine writing a letter in his tent when he's killed, which is unbelievable for a field commander, while Snook has found evidence that Pulleine's body was found on the left front of the camp where the 1st Battalion was attempting to rally, and right where Maori Browne later identified his body. He died a soldier, not hiding in a tent while all around him his troops were fighting and dying...I find this much more credible, personally.
Always amazes me how they used to be able to produce films like this back in the day. Filmed in 1979 doubt they could do the same today, an all star cast and location would cost millions before they even starting filming. Always wished they would make a film of the Battle of Ulundi where the Brits finally won the day and the Zulu wars ended.
If they did make a movie about Ulundi, I want it to be made in the same spirit as this movie and Zulu. It would be the perfect trilogy. First movie is about the British defeat. The second movie (Zulu) would be about the “turning point” at Rorke's Drift. The third movie would be about the British triumph. Of course paying respect to the Zulus and their bravery. And for the love of God, don’t make the movie woke, both sides were imperialist powers you don’t need to sympathize with any of them.
@@Kaiserboo1871Right. In the case of the Zulu they were trying to resist being put into a confederation that had been planned by the colonial secretary
Um well listen up, I stay in South Africa and im Zulu Well check this out the bayonet charges were futile against the Zulu due to the Zulus being superior on 1on1 hand combat and SHEER NUMBERS now the men who charged knowing they would die show that they kept their orders and are better than those who ran away. But still I dont respect wat they did(colonising South Africa) but I do think with out them we wouldnt have been the richest country in Africa, I love em black and white ppl and I got no prob with them I just have a problem when ppl are racist both black and white ppl
@@kennedy072 and yet zulus survivors of the battle,interview by henty and Melton prior all state The dread in which the zulu feared the bayonet.... Their are eyewitness testimony to lone redcoats at the battles peak being surrounded by zulu of the mbonambi and ngobamakhosi regiments ,being unable to be bought down by the zulu because everytime a warrior tried they were fixed through the beck with the bayonet..... One zulu recounts how they could only be killed by throwing spears at them instead of standing toe to toe.... These men...the zulu said......fought like lions. One redcoat charged alone down the hill.....his long knife whirling above his head......it is fire the zulu said to each other. ..he alone attacked the zulu massed ranks until he was killed. Know your subject before spouting off and confirming your a twat.
@@odinmasel3494 ridiculous statement. The zulu testimony of survivors Says otherwise. The martini Henry with a 2 foot lunge was around seven feet long a zulu assegai around 3 foot. The 24th were seasoned veterans of the wars along the frontiers in Africa for many years. The mbonambi and ngobamakhosi witness statements taken by henty and prior state how the zulu dreaded the bayonet.... Your making it up as you go along Thinking everyone is just going to swallow your crap because you claim to be zulu and that entitles you to a superior and more correct opinion......it does not Your statements at best are fantasy at worst deliberate lies Which is it?
@@kennedy072 Who said anything about "defeating" them? A bayonet charge can be made without ever coming into hand-to-hand combat range. It means the men fixed bayonets and advance on the enemy, rather than staying stationary and firing. They could have advanced with bayonets on the Zulus and forced them to withdraw a little one or two times without changing the outcome of the battle. If you think this is impossible, it's because of YOUR bullshit Zulu Warrior Fantasy that makes them all peerless warriors and above everyday things like fear, panic and shock. You'd probably also tell me that it is impossible for less than a company of men to make a bayonet charge of several regiments, and make them break and flee, while taking numerous prisoners...yet that happened on Little Round Top at Gettysburg. Here again, note that Joshua Chamberlain's men made a bayonet CHARGE. It never says that they got anywhere near enough to actually fight with the enemy, The idea is mostly to make them break or fall back, and it's especially successful when the enemy is first intimidated, or _when it's unexpected_ . A group of men, especially under loose discipline, advancing on a smaller group, flush with excitement, sensing imminent victory, suddenly sees the defeated foe instead fixing bayonets and advancing like they are eager to come to combat. It makes men stop, makes them panic and think they must have been mistaken, or they missed something. Panic is contagious. This has happened numerous times in history, I see no reason it couldn't have happened in isolated moments at Isandlwana. At the very least, the British advancing with bayonets would likely have checked the advance of the Zulu for a time, until the British fell back again. Like they don't show in this film, the cannons and the rifles held the Zulu center back for more than 2 HOURS until ammo ran low, and elements began to be flanked and destroyed. The British were trained soldiers, as much or more than the Zulu were trained warriors (or "soldiers" is probably more accurate in both cases), and bodies of men behave in certain ways. The bravery of every single individual doesn't always add up to the same as the sum of the bravery of a unit. A unit full of individually brave men can still be shocked and halted, or even suddenly broken, by the right impact. That's how war worked, especially back then.
I always felt for that little lad, breaks my heart that he was so far away from home and gets killed by a bullet from Birmingham! I am sure that more little kids died in battles like this, I just hope they rest in peace, and God has a nice place for them. I really felt for him, my most moving part of this film.
Im not british so correct me if im wrong But all the scenes in historical movies are true they just add it so maybe the boy being shot is just an extra Again, correct me if im wrong
@@dingus6506 it's good you ask this, but it is fact that Children even as young as 12 years old were sent into battle. They were mostly Drummer Boy's, (banging on the drum) as the soldiers fought, unarmed they were often a target, to lower the morale of the fighting men. Even as recent as World War One, some young men were only 14 years of age, and they were "fighting men". The youngest fighting soldier in modern history was just 8yrs old, he was Russian, this was during WW2, again, not that long ago.
Wonderful re-enactment in this great film, some superb acting by some very good actors, very well done and absolutely rivets youto your seat. Thanks so much for this, very well done.
Yes but obviously this film is a complete work of fiction - there’s no way you ever lose a battle when your army has Bob Hoskins in its ranks just as Zulu was so obviously a complete work of fact because you’d never see an army with Michael Caine in its ranks lose either.
He was a boy bugler possibly early teens. Even though he was shot by a British bullet the Zulus would have in ecordence with post battle traditions disembowled him .Anyone else think this is funny.
Courageous warriors on both sides. British for standing against such an overwhelming number and the Zulu for fearlessly charging at an opponent they know can strike them down long before they would even get a chance to throw a spear.
@1st Duke of Wellington Spears vs Guns its a non contest, not even close.....Fair fight could have been 1000 British soldiers vs 1000 Zulus no weapons involved......I mean you tough guys right?
Jeb Bush Nothing pathetic about the men who stood and fought to the last man ,they stood no chance against over twenty thousand brave Zulu warriors.The word should be tragic like so many wars ,but I think that would pass you bye !
5 famous native forces victories you will love: 1. Battle of Iswandala: 1879 (Zulu victory over British empire) 2. Battle of Adwa: 1896 (Ethiopian victory over Italy) 3. Battle of Little Big Horn: 1876 (Sioux Nation victory over United States) 4. 1st battle of Tenochtitlan aka "La Noche Triste": 1520 (Aztec victory over Spanish empire) 5. Siege of Yogyakarta: 1825 (Javanese victory over Dutch empire)
Read the bood 'The Red Soldier'. I read this when I was in SA. It's and incredible story of the 24th Foot, South Wales Borders and gives a very readable account of the Zulu campaign and how they found the remains of Durnford and other brave men still lying on the battlefield long after the battle had ended.
Considering that this came out before CGI, and therefore featured several hundred or even a couple thousand extras, all apparently physically fit and well coordinated, it is interesting to muse upon the possibility that the Zulus could still raise a frightening army of spear wielding warriors to overrun a smaller modern combat unit.
Unfortunately yeah. The Zulu army attacked a British army besieging the capital Ulundi(Ondini). Many warriors attacked but the British army there had machine guns in addition to the infantry's breech loaded rifles.
Modern Zulu have modern arms, at least as much as the hostile ANC government will let them. These days they're more likely to side with the Boers in civil conflict than with the Communist government.
@ALBassMaster: the main problem at Isandlwana wasn't actually the supply of ammunition although that surely played a part, it was the TYPE of ammunition. In the film they are loading drawn brass cartridges like a modern firearm would take, the original Martini Henry round however, as used in the battle, was formed of a brass shim about as thick as baking foil. It was coiled around a former and attached to an iron base with the primer attached. With the rapid firing the guns soon over-heated and the foil cartridges would stick in the breech, the extractor simply pulling the iron base off which meant the soldier had to use the cleaning rod to force the brass part out of the breech before he could load again. It was the inquiry into this battle that resulted in the adoption of the 'modern' drawn brass cartridge - after those were introduced stoppages due to cartridge failure became very rare. The last thing you need with 20,000 Zulus charging at you is your rifle suddenly converting itself into a short pike!
Would they have upgraded the weapons if this battle had not occurred? You can say the same thing today, would the Army have the V shaped hull armoured vehicle’s if it were not for the Snatch Land Rovers failing in Afgan?
@wavygr Gatling guns are clumsy to move, they are not all that portable to begin with. Besides what good are Gatling guns when they run out of ammunition? I would have kept the Gatling guns at the rear and the flanks. More effective strategy that way to give covering fire for the soldiers using rifles and pistols.
At 4:25 it’s sad because the older guy treats him like a son throughout the whole movie and the fact that he winked shows the bravery but also sad because they knew they were both going to there deaths
HISTORY TIME! 5 main reasons British lost this battle despite having massively superior technology 1. The powder they were using in the Martini-Henry rifle created after several volleys a thick smoke which made it harder to see the incoming Zulu. 2. After about 10-20 shots in quick succession the Martini Henry will begin to suffer from jamming where the cartridges will get stuck and require much more force to push down the barrel (slowing firing rate) 3. Unlike this movie where the Quarter master was an idiot archaeological evidence shows the British were bashing open cases of ammo and had plenty of it. 4. The British never seemed to form tight firing lines as the movie depicts the British were caught off guard and had 20-50 yards between each trooper due to the commander deploying his men further forward then needed (tactical blunder). 5. The British underestimated the Zulu and according to the Zulu themselves they took some sort of drug which made their warriors see a red haze during battle and feel no pain (Making them more ferocious and tenacious despite heavy fire) All in all the Brits put up a good fight but the tactical blunder, the jamming of the rifle after several volleys and the thick smoke created by the gun itself allowed the Zulu to get close and do what they do best. Once the distance was closed and the British were in melee they stood absolutely no chance and got overwhelmed. BONUS FACT The Zulu chief only wanted this battle to happen but his over zealous warriors attacked Rourke drift despite his order to not do so. When the British won that battle it reinvigorated their will to fight. The Zulu chief wanted to use Islandlwana to get a better deal from the British but after the drift that was no longer going to happen and the rest you already know. THANKS FOR JOINING ME THE RANDOM INTERNET FACT GUY!
There was also the factor that the Cartridge Cases of the Martini Henry were made of a soft copper compound and had a tendency to be warped or damaged by rough handling, causing them to jam in the breech.
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH The Zulu King wanted to use the victory of Islandwana to negotiate a better deal but his forces were over zealous and attacked rourke drift despite his orders. When the Zulu were beaten back this reinvigorated British will to fight
However, since the British had invaded him after all and he had essentially only ordered a defensive action, and won that fight, he was in a better position to negotiate or sue for a resumption of peace from victory rather than get his ass kicked into dust before being forced to capitulate.
Mortablunt You just stated my point. After Islandwana which was a british incursion into Zulu land and defeated he wanted to renegotiate a better deal. His army was drunk off victory and attacked rourke drift despite his orders. Thats my point.
That's true. Chelmsford's men discovered the bands-boys mutilated bodies and they had been tortured, with their testicles cut off and forced into their mouths. The age of a bands boy was around 14, the British army never took them again.
The interesting thing that Isandlwana and Rorke's drift basically happened next to each other and were the opposite results Isandwlwna, the Brits outnumbered lost against local forces. Rorke's drift, the Brits were seriously outnumbered... but won the battle against a local enemy. Two similiar situations with completley different results.
Well that depends. At isandlwana there were supposedly 2500 brits vs 80000 Zulo with little to no defensive fortifications. At rorkes drift there were around 400 brits(with around 40 wounded and 40 non-combatant) vs 4000 zulu. Rorkes had some defensive fortifications and a smaller front allowing greater concentration of fire.
@@ernieellan5694 that's incorrect. At Isandwhahla, there were 20,000 Zulus and 2500 brits.... but the brits also had artillery. At Rorkes drift, according to wikipedia, there were only 152 British soldiers against 4000 zulus..there was cavalry at the beginning, but they left. So the odds were a lot worse for Rorke's drift, though I agree, having defenses helps!
I did read, that the Zulu's at Rorkes drift were led by a cousin of the Zulu king, who had ambitions, so needed a victory to continue with his kingly ambitions, he was, and the Zulus were specifically ordered not to attack the British in defensive positions, as, well you know the end result.
The fact that the Zulus managed to defeat a technologically advanced British force is a credit to the tactical skill and fighting spirit of the Zulus and a condemnation of the mind-numbingly idiotic hubris of the British leadership. It’s no wonder that modern Zulus still sing songs of their ancestors’ triumph.
So true.The Zulu warriors are fighting to defend their home land. The British are fighting to take those lands.Who are the true Warrior's.Those who fight for home and family.
@@jackbare4833 appreciate the offer, but realistically, just six C-130 gunships would make very short work of this minor problem. They would mow them down like a feild of grass.
The only people who escaped were mounted troops. In those days infantry officers were mounted but all the infantry officers present chose to stay with their men.
And nobody says that Zulus were colonizing too. Since due to their way of life, they nedded more and more land for their cattle. They were slowly emigrating from the nort, destroying local populations.
Here are the simple facts of empire building. A lot of people hate on the British for their empire building, yet they seem to hate on them while speaking English (but thats beside the point). The Zulus also killed and enslaved their neighbours in a much more brutal way then the British ever did. Why do you think so many African tribes joined the British when they invaded Zululand? Simple fact is, if the Zulus or any other tribe in the world had the technology that the Europeans had, they would be doing the exact same thing. The British were simply able to use their technology to the best of their advantage. If you look at what the British Empire brought to the world, the British did a lot more good than harm
Devon Ziegler Nah, it's all evil. Just that what the US and British did is better known. Had the Zulus been the empire builder and we're speaking out in Zulu against them, we'd be saying the same thing except in Zulu. Of course, we know that the Zulu leaders were themselves rather cruel, so we'd know not to discount that. It's a species thing, sadly. Here's to hoping that the future will be far less violent...
LordWellington15 I fully agree with you, We should be lucky that the British which were probably the most Humanitarian people DURING THAT ERA were the spearhead of the world and the most successful, If it were the Zulu's dominating the world we would be seeing far worse atrocities happening.
Ethan Brown I'm not sure if I can agree with that. The British did have the benefit of science, technology and the economic upper hand. When you're all comfy, well-fed and safe, it's easier to be the humanitarians. Then there's the issue of the environment determining certain things, and factors we're not exactly privy to.
LordWellington15 Oppression is oppression, no matter who does it. The strong will always be hated as they are the one's who managed to hold the power to oppress and enslave, even though that many attempt it. Ironically the british changed the "balance of powers" in africa dramatically with their arrival, together with the other colonial powers, and look where africa is today.
you son of a bitch you beat me to it I was JUST about make a comment starting with that but hey you said it seeing all of those extras coming over the horizon is awesome but I'd say the movie waterloo is probably one of the greatest last "don't make them like they used to" movie becuz holy shit
Battle of Isandlwana was zulu victory However, the British follow-up victories at the famous Battle of Rorke's Drift and the Battle of Kambula restored some British pride. While this retreat presented an opportunity for a Zulu counter-attack deep into Natal, Cetshwayo refused to mount such an attack, his intention being to repulse the British without provoking further reprisals. In 1878, Sir Henry Bartle Frere, British High Commissioner for South Africa, sought to confederate South Africa the same way Canada had been, and felt that this could not be done while there was a powerful and independent Zulu state. So he began to demand reparations for border infractions and forced his subordinates to send carping messages complaining about Cetshwayo's rule, seeking to provoke the Zulu King. They succeeded, but Cetshwayo kept his calm, considering the British to be his friends and being aware of the power of the British army. He did, however, state that he and Frere were equals and since he did not complain about how Frere ruled, the same courtesy should be observed by Frere in regards to Zululand. Eventually, Frere issued an ultimatum that demanded that he should effectively disband his army. His refusal led to the Zulu War in 1879, though he continually sought to make peace after the first battle at Isandhlwana. After an initial crushing but costly Zulu victory over the British at the Battle of Isandlwana, and the failure of the other two columns of the three pronged British attack to make headway - indeed, one was bogged down in the Siege of Eshowe - the British retreated, other columns suffering two further defeats to Zulu armies in the field at the Battle of Intombe and the Battle of Hlobane.
In fact Benjamin Disraeli's Government as depicted at the start of Zulu Dawn despite their imperial ambitions in South Africa actually wanted to annex Zululand through negotiations between the Zulus and the British not war, Henry Bartle Frere and Chelmsford in particular provoked this war themselves and without authorization. In fact when the Zulu king met Queen Victoria and the British establishment in 1883 in London there was much sympathy to his situation because of the way these two men treated Zululand.
Conversation between British soldiers just before the battle: "Right mate, I really feel sorry for those bloody bastards stuck at Rorkes Drift. Poor sods are going to miss all the fun! Back home to Blighty by Christmas!"
Very interesting, from this reenactment (although I must not to take sides) the zulu warriors had numbers, stamina and were battle hardy; whereas the British used intelligence and sequences.
The British army achieved everlasting glory against overwhelming odds. One Zulu Chief remarked “ How few those redcoats were but how they fought - each dropping like a stone in his place”
Вечная слава убивавшим почти безоружных людей! Британский колониализм неистребим. Только англосаксы могут гордиться тем, что захватывали и убивали людей в разных концах земли, далеко от своей страны во "славу" своей страны А теперь удивляются , почему их все ненавидят. В идеале, было бы замечательно, чтобы саксы сдохли. Миру было бы спокойней и меньше войн было бы в мире.
Typically English. Brushing up an utterly incompetent failure and slaughter with a stuffy 'those gallant lads...'. Eating their boots no doubt. Win or don't come back. Like Patton I hate losing and losers. Unfortunately we've had a dusty, decrepit one seize power over us now.
@@NurAbiNaz_kochegarSays the Russia 😂 Russians also have been savages throughout their history annexing and absorbing other territories through war and immense bloodshed.
@@Yes_Fantasy_419 Именно поэтому индусы меняют название страны, а вам навешали люлей в Крыму, и навешаю ещё раз, дайте время, украинцы скоро кончатся и мы, дикари, придем к вам, и спросим за всё, прошло время копий, теперь и у нас есть оружие. Настало время платить по долгам! Готовьтесь, пощады не будет.
The British commander divided his forces in the looming, but undetected presence of the Zulu army, and the contingent left at Isandlwana made a huge mistake in failing to laager their wagons in a traditional Boer defensive circle. Being fully exposed with no redoubt, they were vulnerable to being overrun, which the Zulu impi did, with alacrity. At the Rourke's Drift mission station, Chard prepared a defense in depth, a series of barrier walls, with a final redoubt, which proved crucial during that battle.
That's a rewriting of actual events. Chelmsford split his force because the recon patrol encountered a couple thousand Zulu and requested assistance. This was assumed to be the lead elements of the Zulu impi. No other large formations of Zulus were seen anywhere else before. Chelmsford ordered those at the camp to keep their forces drawn in and act only on the defensive. No laager was needed at Isandlwana. There were 1,000 riflemen, after Durnford was sent for to reinforce. Had they defended right at the camp in a tighter defensive perimeter they likely would have held out. Durnford, however, started dispersing forces out far and wide away from the camp and he pressured Pulleine into supporting him. If Durnford had followed his orders, and those given to Pulleine, there probably wouldn't have been a disaster. It was actually Durnford who split his forces. Durnford split his 2nd Column and sent both halves out on the attack. Chelmsford actually didn't do that.
There's a lot of ifs in your analysis and apology for a serious blunder of intelligence and defensive competence. You seem to be rewriting as well. @@lyndoncmp5751
This is a great movie. The ending is inaccurate but it does give the movie a memorable ending. The Zulu acknowledged their bravery and salute them as fellow warriors. When ever I come across this movie I always remember the ending.
There was an eclipse during this battle as well. Very interesting. I am unsure of the astrological significance but this was the only battle the Zulu's won. After that they were subjugated and their Chief was taken to Britain as a trophy.
The movie ZULU has been a favorite of mine since I saw it on the big screen in the days of the drive-in theatre mid 1960’s. I watch it whenever it hits the small screen in my area.
Yep i watched it in awe for the first time in the mid sixties cinema with me dad as a young kid. Used to watching black and white tv programmes on a small tv and then going to watch this huge multi coloured spectacle with booming audio with a great musical theme just had me transfixed. Those bright redcoats contrasting with the zulu attire, including of course the part naked female ones at the krall, being the abiding memory for me as a young kid at the time.
It was the fault of the British Commanders that this battle ended in the way it did. They didn't take standard precautions as they underestimaed that Zulus and this was the result of it. Rorke's Drift shows what good defences did against the zulus so it could have ended up a lot differently if they planned for a battle.
@Pandas Panda Pan Das They smashed the boxes open with rifle butts, many bent screws on the battlefield to prove this.They were not stupid people.I think they were too spread out ,should have formed a square or got their backs to the hill behind them.Fault of their commanders.
Accounts of the battle indicate that the quartermaster corp did an admirable job of getting ammo to the men. The reason they ran out is because the infantry were too far from the camp where the supply wagons were based. The supplies simply could not get to where they were needed fast enough. The British lines were just too over extended and they were overrun by superior numbers.
@@ethandodd80 Leave the command to those out in the field, not behind a desk, for those within the field know more of what is going on than those back at HQ.
This shows how much technology you got and how much strategty and tactics you learn you can always be defeated or overwhelmed by numbers even if they don't have what you have
Put 5 pairs of sunglasses on while watching this, and it would be a fair comparison! I’m pretty sure the GoT S8 battles were the best, they just forgot to turn on the lights…
ewdennis The British were doublecrossers invading sovereign land. The Zulus consolidated surrounding tribes and formed an empire that they had the right to rule. The British violated treaties and invaded for diamonds. The British were in the wrong here.
In the 1950s my father used to frequent a pub in Wiltshire where an ex-soldier aged over 100 also drank. He'd been a professional soldier and fought in the Boer Wars, the Zulu war and then later WWI. He described how in one of the battles against the Zulus there were so many coming to attack and banging their shields rhythmically that the stones on the ground were jumping long before they could be seen or heard. Enough to make one's blood run cold, I should imagine.
And to make one permanently drunk for ever after. I should imagine.
damn
Jkjkniinonjiyhnkjthytonojhtjnpghotnjopggjnopnjopggbpnjojkpngtgpktggnjbbgggngbgtbgnokgggbknpopkgbngotjonbpgjnopgtgpjongtgbjonpggboknpgtgbnjotbggnojogbtogbgtnojjoobggjjoobjghtjnoobghtojjgohbtjjobjjoohybojojhybô jkjkniinonjiyhnkjthytonojhtjnpghotnjopggjnopnjopggbpnjojkpngtgpktggnjbbgggngbgtbgnokgggbknpopkgbngotjonbpgjnopgtgpjongtgbjonpggboknpgtgbnjotbggnojogbtogbgtnojjoobggjjoobjghtjnoobghtojjgohbtjjobjjoohybojojhybô
@@NoobFiferMurderProFifer bro wtf!?
@@kelvinhow1965 it's nothing¯\_(ツ)_/¯
A young British officer escaped from this battle, his name was Smith-Dorian and he went on the be a general in WWI. Just think of the changes he saw ! From red coats to airplanes, cavalry charges to tanks.
Otherwise known as world war one
From perhaps half a hundred or so slaughtered on a bad day (not including natives of course) to 60,000 or so on the first day of the Somme......
This was a bad day, and i feel like there were a lot more than 50 casualties ;-)
@@thevenator3955 1,300 British troops died and between 1,000 and 2,500 Zulus, a bad day indeed.
@@Dibleydog and to think that number pales in comparison to the battles that would take place just 35 years later...
This and Waterloo are the only times I feel truly immersed in the true scale of these engagements.
Real people real costumes will always look and feel more real then CGI battles
See the Russian version of "War and Peace" done in the 1960's especially the Battle of Borodino. All done with the Russian Red Army. It's a 4 part movie and total of 7 hours long. Lots of detail. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_and_Peace_(film_series)
Waterloo's even funnier because it's the Red Army
Also just saw the comment above
@@btd6enthusiast106 🤔
Fighting in that hot sun Zulu in there bikinis British wrap up in heavy uniform it’s a learning thing not a actual battle .
@@stevemurray4122 What are you on about?
This battle took place in 1879. Up until 1871, British officers still purchased commissions, meaning that many high ranking officers most likely had bought their way into the officer corp. This meant that they were not necessarily officers because they were promoted due to merit or education, but because they came from rich families.
I've read in Col. Snook's book on Rorke's Drift that Color Sgt. Bourne was offered a commission after the battles, but was unable to accept because he couldn't afford it. If commissions were no longer being purchased after 1871, could that have referred to outfitting himself befitting an officer?
@@retriever19golden55 I know that all the way till ww1 (and perhaps beyond that) British officers privately purchased almost every element of their kit from boots, uniform, and leather equipment to their service revolver and sword.
You'd think that people that spent money to gain the position would spend time to become proficient in it lest it simply become a waste of money
1879 to 1871?
Time travel
I am South African. Upon my visit to Isandlwana I stood on the slopes of the "koppie", the white stones marking the British graves scattering the hillside. The energy there is palpable. You can feel a tangible loneliness and desolation there....very sad....as with "Ngcome" (Blood river) (Bloed Rivier)....
@magic8 thanks
I have been there and Blood River, also S African and agree. Spion Kop and Isandlwana are the most haunting battle grounds I have been to. Blood River not so much to me.
I'd love to visit it someday to pay my respects to the dead of both sides. Soldiers and warriors like them should always be revered.
@@johnedington6083 It was indeed.
I'd like to see that place if I ever travel. I would also like to see the Little Bighorn battlefield in Montana. These events were the among the last tribal battles which one over modern armies of the time.
A shortage of ammunition in the face of a 20,000 Zulu warriors is no reason to jump the queue.
That ammo should have been distribute asap.
I think that an immediate retreat would have been wiser.
3k Actually
Mickey Drago excellent essay, I rarely see well sourced material here
@Kelp Farming shut up pussy
Crazy how this was actually just 35 years before WWI broke out!
And 64 years after the end of the Napoleonic wars
Was actually a battle connected to it's continuance in WW1. Germany vs Britain.
@@aebemacgill The people fighting the british here were the Zulus, not the Germans
@@barfazoid5773 yeah think he got confused with the Germans arming the boars a few years later
@@hod2116 yeah
Never underestimate ones opponent. The Zulu were very brave and tenacious fighters. This battle was a massacre of an entire regiment of British Soldiers. Then they went after Rorke's Drift that was a great battle and victory by a small number of British Soldiers. 💪🏼🙏🏻✨
LOL the British were not victorious at Rourke's Drift. They were all slaughtered. The British public were impressed at their valor in the face of certain death, and a number of Victoria Crosses were awarded after the battle - every single one posthumously, since everyone was dead.
@@SuperMariusMaximus i don't know where you learned about Rorke's Drift? I must inform you that you are quite wrong. The battle of Rorke's Drift January 22-23 1879. Saw the British with a garrison of approx 150 officers and men. Fight a Zulu force of upwards of 4,000 warriors. The British losses were 17 killed and 10 wounded. The Zulu losses were approx 500 killed. After two days of fierce battle. The Zulu's withdrew from Rorke's Drift Due to the Great victory by the British garrison at Rorke's Drift. The Victoria Cross was awarded to 11 of the British Defenders of Rorke"s Drift. That is an overwelming victory by the British Soldiers. That is the true history of the Battle of Rorke's Drift. 💪🏻🙏🏻✨
@@SuperMariusMaximus Dude wtf are you talking about. Rorke drift was a brit victory, Isandlwana was a brit defeat, they are different battles
@@SuperMariusMaximus youve been hammerin the steroid injections again marius havent you?
The lasted rorkes drift veteran died in the 1950s
There's two great ironies about this scene:
1. The British did not fight in tight groups as depicted here. Instead they were thinly dispersed across a wide area, severely reducing the amount of firepower they could unleash at a given moment. If they had been arranged as seen here, their volleys would have been far more effective.
2. The Zulus were smart fighters who were fully aware of the British superiority in armaments. Therefore, they did not attack in massive human waves, but rather advanced tactically in relatively small groups, using cover and concealment where possible to reduce the effect of British gunnery as they closed with them (of course many were still killed in the actual assaults). If they had simply all come forward in a huge formation, their casualties would have been far higher.
Basically, the movie's depiction of the battle is what you'd expect to see if the British had won instead of the defeat they actually suffered.
Dick Chappy
Where is your 6k figure from for the Zulus? All sources I've ever seen quote a figure of around 1000-3000 Zulu casualties, in other words, roughly comparable to what the British suffered.
Also, their losses were fairly high because despite outmaneuvering the British force, they were still going up against trained troops with repeating rifles and artillery. Obviously they were going to lose a lot of men whether they won or not.
Note that the ~1500 British dead represented almost their entire force. So it's not just a case of one army losing 1500 and another losing maybe 3000. It case of one army suffering almost 90% casualties vs the other taking about 15%. It means the British lost hard . . .
ancalites Actually, this is a fairly accurate representation of the battle, much more so than in "Zulu" where the mass attacks were inaccurate. As shown the Zulus cleverly used folds in the ground to approach the British camp in large numbers.
The British also fought as companies grouped together so that's right as well. Also the numbers used in the film seem to be much smaller than the actual numbers in the battle with about 200-300 British, there were 1,500, and about 2,000-3,000 Zulu extras when there was 25,000.
ancalites british lost in most parts and the Zulus live there they know the land and british just wanna conquer Zulus r smart fighters by the way
But that isn't as cool to watch, is it?
Dick Chappy The Brits only won because they used missionaries to infiltrate and decimate the Zulu's from within - divide and control, then eventually win. The Brits could never have beaten the Zulu's otherwise.
Fun fact: This battle is closer to the outbreak of WW2 than it's closer to the end of Napoleonic War.
@RollandB It's not a meme. It's a fun fact...
@RollandB Fun fact: It's not a meme.
@RollandB Fun fact: A fun fact is just a fact, either that or just sarcasm
@RollandB Fun fact: Hi is the most used word.
@@2_572 "the" and "a" are the most common in English...
When you have no money to upgrade your units in civilization...
Lol
With enough ancient warrior units it is possible to take a city, you would need hundreds and thousands of warriors (I call it the Soviet Strategy, Strength in numbers)
Their technology was bad and not a lot of knowledge they would win with tactics
@eyup can what r u on about
ŞAİRİ AZAM you make no sense
10:23 the most logistical soldier in the entire battle
10:29 the most unlogical soldier in the entire battle
Fr
What do you mean?
@@josecarranza7555uh, the white soldier was allowed to take bullets.. but the black soldier was not allowed to take ammunition
@@safiahukamdad2022 Elaborate please
@josecarranza7555 You're supposed to give bullets to all soldiers when you're losing this bad, regardless of regiment
charging barefoot, if only the brits had lego pieces to scatter around, the zulus would ve been no match for them...
Hehe
Nah bro they be stepping on thorns and shit imagine how strong they feet are
They're called caltrops and they hurt more than Lego! I would imagine lol
@@terrasolaris5104 😂😂😂.
Yeah they sure would ._.
I’ll always respect military leaders that refuse to eat until the soldiers in their charge already have.
As a platoon sgt. Would always piss me off in the field when one of my soldiers was draging ass to the chow line cause I couldn't eat till they did!
Quite!
@@honestabe1940 Are you always so obnoxious? You must be really bad for morale.
@@jessefisher1809 said the delicate little snowflake!
@@honestabe1940 What is your basis for that statement?
Gawds I love these older movies. Simply because there is *NO CGI*, every single one of those men are real. No director is looking at it going "Oh add in a few hundred more Zulu over here..."
The old movies are the best..
@@frannydarko2698 they are!! and This is a underrated classic
The battle scenes in LOTR were so absurd that way. And where did Arrow Boy refill his quiver?
I feel like the old sound just makes a difference as well
Actually no. There was some "practical effects" trickery, where they used dummies and cardboard cutouts for some of the long shots to bulk out the numbers. But you're right, no CGI (it hadn't been invented yet)...
Great sweeping epic with a staggering cast. No cgi junk here and the accuracy in firearms and uniforms is as good as it gets. A tribute to heroism on both sides and to a sense of duty.
This is the real invasion of my country
“As good as it gets” smh why is the infantry carrying the cavalry carbine version of the Martini Henry and why are the cavalry carrying the full length infantry version?
@@JohnWintergreen-vu5ws And you're from where exactly?
Fun fact: Most of the actors as generals are ww2 veterans. 👍😁
@@SimplyZero it was about the right time for many older men to have served in the second war
Sir Michael Caine served in Korea as part of his national service I believe
Which actors please
They seem a little too young to be a ww2 general in my opinion
@@ghop3878 Lol this movie was made in the early 1960’s and all the generals look like in their 50’s and 60’s! Wdym “tOo YoUnG”!?!?
@@ghop3878 the op meant the officers they are playing most likely fought in ww2
It has always been crazy to me how these old movies choreographed hundreds of people.
Ikr, I always ask that question
One part good extras. Five parts terrifying second assistant director.
And yet, they managed to accomplish it with impressive results.
oh its never crazy for me, if the old romans could muster a Legion fifteen to twenty thousand strong and co ordinate them on march and in battle then a film with a few thousand extras with modern radios and film cameras and phones to ring up the ones who are late aint surprising. It would surprise me more if they were incapable of doing that.
Because back then it was about making films for people who love films.
Today its corporations churning out garbage for $$$.
Visited this battlefield last year, a very moving experience. There was'nt a sound, no wind, no bird song, no crickets.
Just trying to imagine what had taken place there made me feel very humble.
@@edcurant you seem salty... over nothing?
ed curant Oh really, I mean it is not like the British had superior technology and better weaponry while the Zulus were stuck with wooden stakes and cow hide shields.
@@elongatedmuskrat7675 they are not wooden they are iron
Colonials got slaughtered. It was wonderful.
@@Evan8787 yes it is
This is a Great Movie with great actors and action! It also gives good honor and credence to the strategy of the Zulus under Cetswayo. Always felt this movie was terribly underrated.
I know those harp on the British strategy depicted but the panoramic views taken filming are unmatched.
This and Waterloo are certainly go to movies as I love focusing on a random soldier in the background just for a different feel.
This is what happens when you hugely underestimate your enemy and see them as a joke. As Peter O' Tooles character does.
The worst defeat a technogical superior army has suffered by technogical inferior one.
But the british also had the tactic that secured them a empire... The volley fire. And at Rorkes drift, it was displayed with devastating effect.
The british lost at Isandlwana because they underestimated the Zulus and the Zulus lost at Rorkes drift because they underestimated the british.
It happens in boxing as well.
Also the Zulus had the overwhelming numbers of thousands, whereas the British were limited to about 200 to 300. The battle was also out in the open with no convenient cover, except for trenches and that wasn't enough.
At Isandlwana the british force were stronger than it was at Rorkes drift. But true, the Zulu force was still massively outnumbering the british.
The british force at Isandlwana was around 1000 - 1500
At Rorkes drift it was about as low as 300 (maybe even as low as 150)
Zulu forces was at 15.000 - 20.000 strong.
At Rorkes drift it was a force of 4000 Zulus.
Also, at Rorkes drift, the Zulus prefered tactic the horns of the buffalo was rendered ineffective, which also contributed highly to the Zulus loss at Rorkes drift. Unlike here, where it was highly useful.
There British are good at setting records for military defeat
The fall of Singapore was a doozy.
@@Kitiwake It's bound to happen when you've fought everyone, everywhere at least twice. Some of those fights are going to be losses. What's remarkable is how many of them were wins.
The British Army had suffered its worst defeat against an indigenous at The Battle of Isandlwana. What the British force did the next few days at Rorke's Drift was just incredible.
Lord Chelmsford was hated in Horse Guards, but he had friends in Buckingham Palace. When he returned after the Zulu War, he was promoted to Lt. General in 1882, and full general in 1888.
Rorke's Drift was a minor skirmish. This was the big enchilada.
kparc Parc They were surrounded entirely and surrender was impossible unless they wanted to he tortured. Animals always fight incredibly hard when defending themselves and backed into a corner into a life or death situation. Had the British not been surrounded entirely and attacked by people that were ferocious in battle then they might have loss. You should never blatantly surround an enemy that most likely will not surrender due to you treating prisoners like shit or not taking prisoners. That's a tactic that's pretty well known but usually never realized. Boxing your enemy in makes them much more dangerous. Still impressive that they managed to survive for so long against seemingly impossible odds and is inspiring but the zulus could have wiped them out still but were ordered to retreat since they weren't supposed to attack to begin with and used poor tactics.
That's an interesting theory: the Zulus might have won at Rorke's Drift if they had given the British an escape route
Especially when 33 of them were hospitalized leaving approx just 77 to defend.
Fun Fact: Every person in the making of this film is an actual human being, not CGI
Another fun fact: The actors in this movie can act!
@@hyacinthlynch843 Yup! The film also does not condone racism, even though at the time of this film being made that was absolutely fine. I'm pretty sure some people even got angry that the in the film the zulus won at islandawanda and not the british
@@MrBigBoy1245 Yes.The fact that an advanced British fighting force was defeated by Zulu warriors, with primitive weapons, probably irked some Brits when this movie was released.
@@MrBigBoy1245 if it's so racist why did all those black guys act in it?
Also it's not racist it's historically accurate.
@@jakeweberzwier8655 I never did say it was racist, quite alot of the warriors were actually from the zulu tribe.
This film was lambasted at the time, however, just the fact that the action scenes were directed without CGI makes it a great action film.
What did the British fight in Africa for? For the motherland?.
@@blackkite65 Imperialism. England during this period wanted to keep hold of all she owned.
@@blackkite65 It was the Rothschild's desire that the hegemony of strong Africans, Asians, Eurasians, and the Russ be made weak to be made more pliable and amiable towards being dispersed in later generations. It has always been their desire to send forth these races into white societies thus weakening the West. The Rothschilds are Zionists, their intentions have never been for the good of Western nations but all for their so called greater purpose of bringing forth prophecy towards end times. They have worked as leaders in a coalition of Zionist Christians and Zionist Jews alike towards the goal of the Jews seeing their Messiah (who the Christians think is the eventual Anti-Christ) and the Christians seeing that as a final sign of the eventual coming of Jesus Christ's return. They're fooled by the Devil though. As it was written and as it has been said, that neither the hour may be chosen nor the hand of God may be moved save but for only him. It is a great trick of the Devil that makes mere mortals think they can have any effect on such things in or with God's favor. Zionist Christians are not real Christians and Zionist Jews are not real Jews. Woe to them both, for they have forsaken all of humanity and the true God. True history when sifted through finely enough can back this easily.
@@blackkite65diamonds
@@blackkite65mining rights.. Diamonds were found allllll throughout South Africa, bri’ish wanted to flex and spill blood for da blood diamonds
Lucky enough to have stayed in the lodge looking over the battlefield. Amazing experience. White cairns mark the fallen. Last British soldier to die was in a small cave on the higher ground, you can see the bullet holes where the Zulus were shooting at him. Went on to visit Rourke’s Drift, they have marked out where the mealie bags defence wall was - not as big as you would imagine and the lay of the land vastly different to the film.
Did you feel the presence of the fallen. It must have been an extremely spiritual experience. I believe those who died in extremely violent circumstances never left that place.
@@chrisholland7367 it was indeed, conical hill was the strangest thing on the battlefield… seemed totally out of place (look it up)
Fugitive's Drift?
Yo@peterware6115 there's a difference between rocks and bags mealie meal aka corn for one rocks r harder than bags bruh# bags of grain isn't going too protect you from Rifle bullets/Spears
thank you for that explanation
The failure to secure an effective defensive position, the poor intelligence on the location of the main Zulu army, Chelmsford's decision to split his force in half, and the Zulus' tactical exploitation of the terrain and the weaknesses in the British formation, all combined to prove catastrophic for the troops.
All their guns jamming often was the biggest blow by far… no point having a gun if it doesn’t work 💀
Dead on. Everyone wants the one thing that makes the difference, but its generally a combination of failures that causes a cascade...
If you had been there as a tactical genius it would have been different 🤣
It was the ingenuity of the Zulus fighting for their homeland that proved British cowardice. Nothing more.
Plus the fact Chelmsford rode off with the ammunition keys
Teacher: we’re going on a trip to South Africa
Girls: OMG I can’t wait to see lions and the beautiful nature
Boys:
*Chants in Zulu*
Cringe
So they set up a camp, shoot at the locals and then they all die
Be careful for those natives. They are fearless
Peruvian Potato yes
Can we just appreciate how the cameraman recorded this footage and survived the war without dieing to publish it onto TH-cam?
I thought this was highlight film from the last Viking football loss.
This is a movie…
@@Astrogamezz r/whooooosh
Real question is how did he charge his batteries? How did they do it in the bush?
He had a steady hand in combat and never got a bad angle respect 🫡
About 20 years ago they did an archology dig on the sight of this battle . They found many bent screws from the ammunition boxes . A screw driver was needed to open them . In desperation the soldiers had used their rifle butts to force them open, when none was available . Where these were found , it was possible to work out where the troops stood. They were not as shown here . But in a line about 20 paces apart .
After an Earthquake in Mexico tons of food & supplies were delivered in cans but no can openers. The moon astronauts were unable to take off because they needed a long thin screw driver to reset a circuit breaker.
Yes the defensive line was too far forward diluting the firepower advantage add to that the fact that after prolonged firing the martini cartridges would expand and have to be manually removed and the disaster is guaranteed.
@@AndrewAustinFrustrated the cartridges did expand but the expansion of the metal in the actions on the rifles was the problem. Cartridges naturally expand when they are fired and this is allowed for in the extraction process. Competition shooters who reload their own ammo call them"fire formed brass"and after trimming to case length prefer them to new cases. Metal expands when heated and I imagine by the time "fire at will" was given those actions were quite hot but if they were having extraction problems it is more likely it was from fouling from the black powder used at the time and the heated actions combined. I'm a reloader and a metalworker and I'm just trying to pass along a little knowledge I have on the subject.
Andrew Austin
That was Durnford deciding to make a last stand some one mile out. Pulleine was obliged to support him and had to keep his infantry companies out there.
If Durnford didn't decide to make his stand so far out, Pulleine would have undoubtedly pulled his infantry companies in closer. He wouldn't have had a choice. The Zulu left horn would have threatened the rear of the firing line. However, Durnford halting the Zulu left horn for a while actually ultimately lead to the battle being lost. That is the irony.
The ammunition boxes and bent screws are a red herring. A screwdriver was not needed to open ammunition boxes at all. YT channel Britishmuzzleloaders South Africa series demonstrates with an example of such an ammunition box from this period which was easily opened with a strike by rifle butt to the top of these boxes and this was very well known to the infantry who used them. Ammunition only became an issue when the firing line was cut off from camp supplies by the enveloping right and left horns of the Zulu battlefield manoeuvres.
How we lost this battle and were wiped out with Burt Lancaster and Peter O'Toole on our side is quite unbelievable.
They were outnumbered
@@Dawsonguidroz8538 and they were fighting zulus
@@markm2092 also they did not have enough Ammunition
@@bob9396 They had plenty of ammo. They just could not distribute it fast enough.
@@interestedbystander196 they did but just not enough to kill 25000 zulu i think
As Zulus we still commemorate the battle of Sandlwane those are our fallen heroes, proudly Zulu
That's pretty cool that you're Zulu. I hope your culture will be preserved
Okay but you got yours arses kicked at Rorksdrift by a small British army but 🇬🇧😂
@@Meadows-tg3tv come on guys you were using advanced weapons what were you expecting.
@@jan-lucam5977 yes our culture will never die in South Africa Zulus are the strongest when it comes to cultural practice,the music,language and traditional attire
@@bhekaninhleko9237 hello , My name is Michael Caine , not many people know that .
My name is 'Frankie'.
Handed down from my 2nd great uncle.
He signed up to serve with The SOuth Wales Borderers. No doubt because he had heard of their derring do deeds in Africa and they came on a recruitment drive to my city of Liverpool in 1916.
He wa 16 and a half.
He fought and lived thru the Somme.
He died two weeks before the end of the war.
As a South Wales Borderer. From Mile End. Liverpool.
My father was named francis in his honour...and then myself. Then my eldest son.
I am proud to carry his name x
We lost one at Ypres 1917
You have to love the British. Oh shit thousands of enemies heading our way. Lets have some tea. Lol.
Of course we drink tea first.we ain't stupid it might be the last time we get one for a while.
@@nathangarland9453 That's the best and truest answer I have heard 👍
@@nathangarland9453 that reminds me of a line from Waterloo, "Gin up boys, get it while you can, the french will have it out of you any minute anyway", but gin instead of tead because y'know, soldiers instead of officers haha
@@howardthealien2606 in the battle of waterloo, the soldiers are having gin in the middle of the battle, and the offices make toast with brandy right before. It just reminded me of it, sorry if it doesn't make sense to you
Coffinsmoke there welsh..
I liked it when the zulu's said: Wohuooowowooohouuhowuwuohohohoh
I liked how the zulus were all in the end given British passports since diversity is a strength.
Miles Bennet Dyson 😭😭😭 no get them out!
I liked it too.
They were just saying “Zulu” so rapidly it sounds like WOHWOHWOHWOWHWOHWOHWOHW
@@wesdavies9500 yeah and they liked it a few months later at Ulundi....
Something I see in a lot of movies from the last 3 decades is that the heroes, or at least the defenders, meet the enemy with stone cold defiance. Showing absolutely no fear and ready to die where they stand no matter the odds.
Here the British soldiers and officers consistently look like they're about to piss themselves and it makes the battle feel much more immersive.
The 24th stood their ground and fought bravely to their end. The Zulus own accounts of this Battle says the British firing line was professional to the last man and they all died as warriors. The firing line was made up of veterans of the 24th and they showed no fear in the thick of Battle according to the victorious Zulu, many of 24th made brave but futile bayonet charges into the Zulu regiments.
@@jamesmills4850 Even battle hardened veterans might look a bit worried seeing thousands of enemy soldiers barrelling towards them.
@Oscar Hampson I've no doubt that some veterans may look 'a bit worried' when faced with a determined enemy, and some may desert...Being only human. Yet, Looking a bit worried and looking like you are about to piss yourself are very different. The 24th were perhaps a bit worried but fought through any apprehensions they might have had to perform with professionalism. This is a good definition of bravery. Men described as looking like they were about to piss themselves would likely be no use under pressure and would likey become a cowardly rabble very quickly. We have reliable accounts of the battle from the British camp survivors who observed the British firing lines defeat and the accounts from the victorious Zulu's and which matched in detail and do not contradict the other. Both accounts reveals the British firing line fought a well ordered retirement trying to get back to their camp supplies. That could only be done by men who did not panic or outwardly show fear. After the Zulu's cut off the ammunition supplies the British formed squares and fought bravely to their ends, many of whom shook hands with their compatriots and bayonet charged the Zulu's in a glorious last stand. Not something you could do if 'pissing' yourself with fear. They were warriors whom the Zulu 's respected. To portray soldiers, for dramatic effect, as looking likey to piss themselves in battle is fine. But to portray specific soldiers like this when it is known to be historically inaccurate is no less than a slur on these brave mens characters.
@The Richest Man In Babylon You mean that in the comment where I used the word movie, in the first sentence no less, I wasn't actually aware that I was talking about movies?
@The Richest Man In Babylon no you don't say.
Can't understand why people don't like history. It's fascinating. I love it.
And it educates one in reality. And nowt to repeat the errors made.
Unfortunately ‘history’ shows we are forever repeating the mistakes of the past, despite learning of them. Often makes me wonder how thick are dolphins & chimps if we evolved above them.
"we are well supplied with ammo Sir, 10.000 rounds!" " There are 25,000 Zulus !" " Oh... "
Its almost similar like germany vs soviet union meme
@@Bikavin germans smashed superior numbers of soviets in summer 41 no problem.
@@Nikola95inYT but in later years like 1943-1945 the soviet union is outnumbered germany and manage to win because germany is weaken by the allied
@@Bikavin Soviet Union after battle of Kursk had the T34-85 which could kill the tigers and panzers easily.
@@FH-tg4yh its not easily but more easier
@3:09 I know they tried to get as many extras as realistically possible but in reality there was probably 6 or 7 times the number of Zulu warriors. There was c. 15,000 warriors in 3 battle groups so the real number of Zulu would cover the whole screen until the horizon that's visible plus 2 more battle groups on the wings that wouldn't be visible in this shot. Crazy..
@The Richest Man In Babylon Impi just translates to “war” which the English chose to call amaZulu regiments that. The actual Zulu word for Regiments is “amabutho” and just “ibutho” for just 1 regiment.
There was around 4,000 extras there.
The film does its best to throw you in there but in reality, it would certainly test your spirit... and those men knew exactly what the Zulu were, unlike many on here. Yes, the Zulu were formidable warriors, a warrior nation - ravaging Southern Africa and enslaving - would have likely taken over if it were not stopped.
ZULU!!!!! One of my favorite movies. One of the first movies I remember me and my dad watching late at night.
This isn't Zulu it's a totally different film!
This is Zulu Dawn
bb@@adrianburchell8075
Dawn
There's an amazing book call Washing of the Spears, which gives an incredible amount of background to the participants on both sides of Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift.
I think the book zulu by Saul David is a more accurate and more enjoyable read personally.
Morris' Washing of the Spears was considered definitive at the time, but Col. Mike Snook, a serving officer of The Royal Regiment of Wales (formerly the 24th, the regiment depicted in the films), stationed in South Africa who calls a number of Zulu his friends, wrote a pair of books: How Can Man Die Better (Isandlwana), and Like Wolves on the Fold (Rorke's Drift). He has the military experience to decode the clues about the action, and the friendships with Zulu people to interpret the primary sources. I believe he is much more accurate than Morris. Morris has Pulleine writing a letter in his tent when he's killed, which is unbelievable for a field commander, while Snook has found evidence that Pulleine's body was found on the left front of the camp where the 1st Battalion was attempting to rally, and right where Maori Browne later identified his body. He died a soldier, not hiding in a tent while all around him his troops were fighting and dying...I find this much more credible, personally.
I have that book. A bit of light reading, eh?
The battles anniversary is on my birthday, 22nd January.
Washing of the spears is outdated massively
@@retriever19golden55Ian Knight is the leading historian.
This is one of the best battle scenes ever filmed. Its such a shame the movie is so hard to get hold of in bluray.
Ikr
It's on Amazon prime in hd,
It's on Netflix now lol
@@markscouler2534 lies
Just think how effective the zulus would be if they used guerilla tactics at night.
Yh and besides they have night camouflage
@@wt380 that comment was corny
they did, and it's just as terrifying as you can imagine.
They had a vary Modern way of fighting they used encirclement tactic and such
@@jamie8032 but! They didn't like it up them lol
Those zulus were blatantly ignoring the social distancing rules.
That's why they dropped like flies.
😂😂
And no masks!
Bro the british should like use the lancers
And yes Lancers charge is good
Interupting British tea time .
Always amazes me how they used to be able to produce films like this back in the day. Filmed in 1979 doubt they could do the same today, an all star cast and location would cost millions before they even starting filming. Always wished they would make a film of the Battle of Ulundi where the Brits finally won the day and the Zulu wars ended.
If they did make a movie about Ulundi, I want it to be made in the same spirit as this movie and Zulu.
It would be the perfect trilogy.
First movie is about the British defeat.
The second movie (Zulu) would be about the “turning point” at Rorke's Drift.
The third movie would be about the British triumph. Of course paying respect to the Zulus and their bravery.
And for the love of God, don’t make the movie woke, both sides were imperialist powers you don’t need to sympathize with any of them.
@@Kaiserboo1871Right. In the case of the Zulu they were trying to resist being put into a confederation that had been planned by the colonial secretary
@@everettduncan7543 The Zulu Empire was just as imperialistic as the British. Both wanted to conquer lands and expand their empires.
@@topcat4759 I hope Netflix don’t do a remake if their treatment of Vikings is anything to go by, there would be white Zulus.
One thing I really wish they'd shown were the multiple bayonet charges the British made into the masses of Zulus. Those were men right there.
Um well listen up, I stay in South Africa and im Zulu
Well check this out the bayonet charges were futile against the Zulu due to the Zulus being superior on 1on1 hand combat and SHEER NUMBERS now the men who charged knowing they would die show that they kept their orders and are better than those who ran away.
But still I dont respect wat they did(colonising South Africa) but I do think with out them we wouldnt have been the richest country in Africa, I love em black and white ppl and I got no prob with them I just have a problem when ppl are racist both black and white ppl
@@kennedy072 and yet zulus survivors of the battle,interview by henty and Melton prior all state
The dread in which the zulu feared the bayonet....
Their are eyewitness testimony to lone redcoats at the battles peak being surrounded by zulu of the mbonambi and ngobamakhosi regiments ,being unable to be bought down by the zulu because everytime a warrior tried they were fixed through the beck with the bayonet.....
One zulu recounts how they could only be killed by throwing spears at them instead of standing toe to toe....
These men...the zulu said......fought like lions.
One redcoat charged alone down the hill.....his long knife whirling above his head......it is fire the zulu said to each other. ..he alone attacked the zulu massed ranks until he was killed.
Know your subject before spouting off and confirming your a twat.
@@odinmasel3494 ridiculous statement.
The zulu testimony of survivors
Says otherwise.
The martini Henry with a 2 foot lunge was around seven feet long a zulu assegai around 3 foot.
The 24th were seasoned veterans of the wars along the frontiers in Africa for many years.
The mbonambi and ngobamakhosi witness statements taken by henty and prior state how the zulu dreaded the bayonet....
Your making it up as you go along
Thinking everyone is just going to swallow your crap because you claim to be zulu and that entitles you to a superior and more correct opinion......it does not
Your statements at best are fantasy at worst deliberate lies
Which is it?
Odin masel what’s it like talking that none sense and then getting called out on it?
@@kennedy072 Who said anything about "defeating" them? A bayonet charge can be made without ever coming into hand-to-hand combat range. It means the men fixed bayonets and advance on the enemy, rather than staying stationary and firing. They could have advanced with bayonets on the Zulus and forced them to withdraw a little one or two times without changing the outcome of the battle. If you think this is impossible, it's because of YOUR bullshit Zulu Warrior Fantasy that makes them all peerless warriors and above everyday things like fear, panic and shock. You'd probably also tell me that it is impossible for less than a company of men to make a bayonet charge of several regiments, and make them break and flee, while taking numerous prisoners...yet that happened on Little Round Top at Gettysburg. Here again, note that Joshua Chamberlain's men made a bayonet CHARGE. It never says that they got anywhere near enough to actually fight with the enemy, The idea is mostly to make them break or fall back, and it's especially successful when the enemy is first intimidated, or _when it's unexpected_ . A group of men, especially under loose discipline, advancing on a smaller group, flush with excitement, sensing imminent victory, suddenly sees the defeated foe instead fixing bayonets and advancing like they are eager to come to combat. It makes men stop, makes them panic and think they must have been mistaken, or they missed something. Panic is contagious. This has happened numerous times in history, I see no reason it couldn't have happened in isolated moments at Isandlwana. At the very least, the British advancing with bayonets would likely have checked the advance of the Zulu for a time, until the British fell back again. Like they don't show in this film, the cannons and the rifles held the Zulu center back for more than 2 HOURS until ammo ran low, and elements began to be flanked and destroyed. The British were trained soldiers, as much or more than the Zulu were trained warriors (or "soldiers" is probably more accurate in both cases), and bodies of men behave in certain ways. The bravery of every single individual doesn't always add up to the same as the sum of the bravery of a unit. A unit full of individually brave men can still be shocked and halted, or even suddenly broken, by the right impact. That's how war worked, especially back then.
I always felt for that little lad, breaks my heart that he was so far away from home and gets killed by a bullet from Birmingham!
I am sure that more little kids died in battles like this, I just hope they rest in peace, and God has a nice place for them.
I really felt for him, my most moving part of this film.
Im not british so correct me if im wrong
But all the scenes in historical movies are true they just add it so maybe the boy being shot is just an extra
Again, correct me if im wrong
@@dingus6506 it's good you ask this, but it is fact that Children even as young as 12 years old were sent into battle.
They were mostly Drummer Boy's, (banging on the drum) as the soldiers fought, unarmed they were often a target, to lower the morale of the fighting men.
Even as recent as World War One, some young men were only 14 years of age, and they were "fighting men".
The youngest fighting soldier in modern history was just 8yrs old, he was Russian, this was during WW2, again, not that long ago.
@@paulcrombie9623 ok
@@paulcrombie9623 No he was Serbian, in WW1 Momcilo Gavric.
@@The_OneManCrowd Thanks for that info mate.
I love how civilized they were in the camp while a giant army as running at them
But that's not how it happened
@@tjgumede Where you there
Arrogance
@@ronaldburns7877 did you study history?
There were two different camps.
The movie switched from one to the other.
Wonderful re-enactment in this great film, some superb acting by some very good actors, very well done and absolutely rivets youto your seat. Thanks so much for this, very well done.
Yes but obviously this film is a complete work of fiction - there’s no way you ever lose a battle when your army has Bob Hoskins in its ranks just as Zulu was so obviously a complete work of fact because you’d never see an army with Michael Caine in its ranks lose either.
lets take a moment of silence for the guy who got killed by his Buddys bullet
Oof
Probably rather die by that than a bunch of spears
He was a boy bugler possibly early teens. Even though he was shot by a British bullet the Zulus would have in ecordence with post battle traditions disembowled him .Anyone else think this is funny.
@@chrisholland7367 well they deserve it
@@addictedtofamilyguy7627 did they ?
Britain's own Battle of Little Bighorn
On a larger scale
@@siralonnevincenthan841 Right 😂
Your right.
So right
ZULU 👏👣👏👏
Courageous warriors on both sides. British for standing against such an overwhelming number and the Zulu for fearlessly charging at an opponent they know can strike them down long before they would even get a chance to throw a spear.
Andrew Graves nothing courageous about a guns vs spear fight
@1st Duke of Wellington Spears vs Guns its a non contest, not even close.....Fair fight could have been 1000 British soldiers vs 1000 Zulus no weapons involved......I mean you tough guys right?
@@humpparri2053 if the war was hand to hand, none of Zulu's would have dead and all British people would.
Jeb Bush Nothing pathetic about the men who stood and fought to the last man ,they stood no chance against over twenty thousand brave Zulu warriors.The word should be tragic like so many wars ,but I think that would pass you bye !
@@balyeetbhagaloe6416-- War is not about a ''fair fight'' you dickhead.
5 famous native forces victories you will love:
1. Battle of Iswandala: 1879 (Zulu victory over British empire)
2. Battle of Adwa: 1896 (Ethiopian victory over Italy)
3. Battle of Little Big Horn: 1876 (Sioux Nation victory over United States)
4. 1st battle of Tenochtitlan aka "La Noche Triste": 1520 (Aztec victory over Spanish empire)
5. Siege of Yogyakarta: 1825 (Javanese victory over Dutch empire)
Basotho gun war against British
Yeah, how many colonies did said tribes form worldwide ?? 🤔🤐
Except Ethiopia was never colonized. Just occupied by the Italians. Especially by Mussolini and his goons.
Yorke's Ridge ?
Add some more
6)1st and 2nd Anglo Mysore war
7)1st Anglo Maratha war
8)Maratha Portuguese war
9)First Anglo Afghan war
Went to the actual battlefield, and also Rorkes Drift December 2016, amazing experience !
so did i
Read the bood 'The Red Soldier'. I read this when I was in SA. It's and incredible story of the 24th Foot, South Wales Borders and gives a very readable account of the Zulu campaign and how they found the remains of Durnford and other brave men still lying on the battlefield long after the battle had ended.
Considering that this came out before CGI, and therefore featured several hundred or even a couple thousand extras, all apparently physically fit and well coordinated, it is interesting to muse upon the possibility that the Zulus could still raise a frightening army of spear wielding warriors to overrun a smaller modern combat unit.
but machine guns mortars land mines etc
Unfortunately yeah. The Zulu army attacked a British army besieging the capital Ulundi(Ondini). Many warriors attacked but the British army there had machine guns in addition to the infantry's breech loaded rifles.
@@daves6394 uh what-
Modern Zulu have modern arms, at least as much as the hostile ANC government will let them. These days they're more likely to side with the Boers in civil conflict than with the Communist government.
Most of the extras on the British side were South African Army national servicemen. Hence they would be fit and coordinated.
I’m Xhosa but I will forever respect zulus for such bravery with limited resources
I'd love to learn more about the Xhosa people. Often over shadowed by the Zulu in history books.
The Zulu were every bit as feared and respected as the British at the time. Very brave and very clever in their tactics.
A decade later and they would have had .303 Lee-Metford repeaters with 10 rounds per box.
A hard lesson...
375GTB wasn’t even that can’t shoot if you have no ammo
@ALBassMaster: the main problem at Isandlwana wasn't actually the supply of ammunition although that surely played a part, it was the TYPE of ammunition. In the film they are loading drawn brass cartridges like a modern firearm would take, the original Martini Henry round however, as used in the battle, was formed of a brass shim about as thick as baking foil. It was coiled around a former and attached to an iron base with the primer attached. With the rapid firing the guns soon over-heated and the foil cartridges would stick in the breech, the extractor simply pulling the iron base off which meant the soldier had to use the cleaning rod to force the brass part out of the breech before he could load again. It was the inquiry into this battle that resulted in the adoption of the 'modern' drawn brass cartridge - after those were introduced stoppages due to cartridge failure became very rare. The last thing you need with 20,000 Zulus charging at you is your rifle suddenly converting itself into a short pike!
That's like saying had Hitler waited a year or 2 he would of had a enough jet air craft to fight the battle of Britain with.
Would they have upgraded the weapons if this battle had not occurred? You can say the same thing today, would the Army have the V shaped hull armoured vehicle’s if it were not for the Snatch Land Rovers failing in Afgan?
@wavygr Gatling guns are clumsy to move, they are not all that portable to begin with. Besides what good are Gatling guns when they run out of ammunition? I would have kept the Gatling guns at the rear and the flanks. More effective strategy that way to give covering fire for the soldiers using rifles and pistols.
At 4:25 it’s sad because the older guy treats him like a son throughout the whole movie and the fact that he winked shows the bravery but also sad because they knew they were both going to there deaths
Kinda reminds me.if the last samurai when the Japanese officer was talking to algren before the battle started.
HISTORY TIME! 5 main reasons British lost this battle despite having massively superior technology
1. The powder they were using in the Martini-Henry rifle created after several volleys a thick smoke which made it harder to see the incoming Zulu.
2. After about 10-20 shots in quick succession the Martini Henry will begin to suffer from jamming where the cartridges will get stuck and require much more force to push down the barrel (slowing firing rate)
3. Unlike this movie where the Quarter master was an idiot archaeological evidence shows the British were bashing open cases of ammo and had plenty of it.
4. The British never seemed to form tight firing lines as the movie depicts the British were caught off guard and had 20-50 yards between each trooper due to the commander deploying his men further forward then needed (tactical blunder).
5. The British underestimated the Zulu and according to the Zulu themselves they took some sort of drug which made their warriors see a red haze during battle and feel no pain (Making them more ferocious and tenacious despite heavy fire)
All in all the Brits put up a good fight but the tactical blunder, the jamming of the rifle after several volleys and the thick smoke created by the gun itself allowed the Zulu to get close and do what they do best. Once the distance was closed and the British were in melee they stood absolutely no chance and got overwhelmed.
BONUS FACT The Zulu chief only wanted this battle to happen but his over zealous warriors attacked Rourke drift despite his order to not do so. When the British won that battle it reinvigorated their will to fight. The Zulu chief wanted to use Islandlwana to get a better deal from the British but after the drift that was no longer going to happen and the rest you already know. THANKS FOR JOINING ME THE RANDOM INTERNET FACT GUY!
There was also the factor that the Cartridge Cases of the Martini Henry were made of a soft copper compound and had a tendency to be warped or damaged by rough handling, causing them to jam in the breech.
88GAF
LIVERPOOLSCOTTISH
The Zulu King wanted to use the victory of Islandwana to negotiate a better deal but his forces were over zealous and attacked rourke drift despite his orders. When the Zulu were beaten back this reinvigorated British will to fight
However, since the British had invaded him after all and he had essentially only ordered a defensive action, and won that fight, he was in a better position to negotiate or sue for a resumption of peace from victory rather than get his ass kicked into dust before being forced to capitulate.
Mortablunt
You just stated my point. After Islandwana which was a british incursion into Zulu land and defeated he wanted to renegotiate a better deal. His army was drunk off victory and attacked rourke drift despite his orders. Thats my point.
Props to the guy who went back in time to record this
My great Grandfather Cpl Henry Berry survived this battle. He was mounted. His great grandfather spent 22 years qith the 65th in India,
To heroes like him we salute
Who careS?. They were in a land that did not belong to them ..... and killing African people.
Fuck your great Grandfather
Good riddance, racist shithead.
When the doors open at Walmart on Black Friday.
@@kamieaston3016 Heh, no
@@PotatoGrenadier heh, yes daddy
The british were either I phone Xs or employees
BLACK SUNDY & SUTURDAY ,
NOT A FRIDAY ,OK ,
Thats about right!
I believe it was after Isandlwna that the British army stopped using boy drummers, because of what the Zulus did to them.
The average age of drummers at Isandalwana was 24
That's true. Chelmsford's men discovered the bands-boys mutilated bodies and they had been tortured, with their testicles cut off and forced into their mouths. The age of a bands boy was around 14, the British army never took them again.
@mike talas source?
@mike talas 12 years having arrived on Earth and that's what they are introduced to!
mike talas Britain wasn’t conscripting twelve year olds. They lied about their age. Some thing happened in the American armed forces in ww2.
The interesting thing that Isandlwana and Rorke's drift basically happened next to each other and were the opposite results Isandwlwna, the Brits outnumbered lost against local forces. Rorke's drift, the Brits were seriously outnumbered... but won the battle against a local enemy. Two similiar situations with completley different results.
Superados en número.rifles contra flechas
Well that depends. At isandlwana there were supposedly 2500 brits vs 80000 Zulo with little to no defensive fortifications. At rorkes drift there were around 400 brits(with around 40 wounded and 40 non-combatant) vs 4000 zulu. Rorkes had some defensive fortifications and a smaller front allowing greater concentration of fire.
@@ernieellan5694 that's incorrect. At Isandwhahla, there were 20,000 Zulus and 2500 brits.... but the brits also had artillery.
At Rorkes drift, according to wikipedia, there were only 152 British soldiers against 4000 zulus..there was cavalry at the beginning, but they left.
So the odds were a lot worse for Rorke's drift, though I agree, having defenses helps!
I did read, that the Zulu's at Rorkes drift were led by a cousin of the Zulu king, who had ambitions, so needed a victory to continue with his kingly ambitions, he was, and the Zulus were specifically ordered not to attack the British in defensive positions, as, well you know the end result.
they dont make films with battles like this anymore.
th-cam.com/video/nQrE8vOM0ss/w-d-xo.html
Only CGI
Paul Abercrombie The Zulu seen in this film we’re the real deal and it wouldn’t of been possible with out them
how did they get so many extras?
@@Gwestytears "hey you guys want to play in a movie where you kill the people that destroyed your country"
"Our sideburns shall surely carry the day, eh gents?"
Rather !
Quite
Indubitably
This was one of my dad's favorite movies. I haven't seen this in like 25 years. Wow. Definitely gonna watch this again now.
Хер,поймешь
The fact that the Zulus managed to defeat a technologically advanced British force is a credit to the tactical skill and fighting spirit of the Zulus and a condemnation of the mind-numbingly idiotic hubris of the British leadership.
It’s no wonder that modern Zulus still sing songs of their ancestors’ triumph.
10:23
But bullets run out...and those bloody spears don't!
And they run out quicker when you have an old asshole doling them out like they're gold nuggets!
Precise assessment of the deteriorating situation.
They brake..
So true.The Zulu warriors are fighting to defend their home land. The British are fighting to take those lands.Who are the true Warrior's.Those who fight for home and family.
The spears are non
US military defending Area 51 from 1 million stormers. 20 September, 2019 (colorised)
They should bring in the British Army to defend the area.
@@jackbare4833 that would make zero sense. Its an american outpost and britain has nothing to do with it.
@Kernal Scott 2 Apparently you Tommys can't tell piss from bullshit these days
@@jackbare4833 appreciate the offer, but realistically, just six C-130 gunships would make very short work of this minor problem. They would mow them down like a feild of grass.
@@MausOfTheHouse r/woooosh
Damn, they had good cameras back in 1879. Props to him for not getting killed somehow!
He also had to run far distances to get from one end of the battle to the other!
The cameraman is actually a skilled fighter who is helping the brits disguised as a cameraman
@@berzec no freakin way!
Plot twist: the cameraman was zulus
nOOo! tHiS waSn’t fILmeD at 1879 tHiS iS a MoViE yOu IdIOttt!!!1!1!!1!11!
I would definitely want to be a mounted cavalry in that battle , so I could retreat back to the ships and get my ass back to England.
Yes very wise no zulus in England, I would to.
The calvary didnt make it out either.
*arse
Not fast enough
The only people who escaped were mounted troops. In those days infantry officers were mounted but all the infantry officers present chose to stay with their men.
And nobody says that Zulus were colonizing too. Since due to their way of life, they nedded more and more land for their cattle. They were slowly emigrating from the nort, destroying local populations.
True. Also, they took slaves since they were "cattle men" they needed others to do the simple stuff, i.e., hall water, etc.
@StahlBlitz Bantu Expansion was before this
discrimination
Ok and ? It's 3 years later and your comment doesn't seem to have a point.
Remamber Zulus are africans and dutch are not so dont compare them - Africa for Africans
Here are the simple facts of empire building. A lot of people hate on the British for their empire building, yet they seem to hate on them while speaking English (but thats beside the point). The Zulus also killed and enslaved their neighbours in a much more brutal way then the British ever did. Why do you think so many African tribes joined the British when they invaded Zululand? Simple fact is, if the Zulus or any other tribe in the world had the technology that the Europeans had, they would be doing the exact same thing. The British were simply able to use their technology to the best of their advantage. If you look at what the British Empire brought to the world, the British did a lot more good than harm
Its the Cavalry syndrome, natives can kill and steal land from each other, but as soon as the US, or British do it it's evil.
Devon Ziegler Nah, it's all evil. Just that what the US and British did is better known. Had the Zulus been the empire builder and we're speaking out in Zulu against them, we'd be saying the same thing except in Zulu. Of course, we know that the Zulu leaders were themselves rather cruel, so we'd know not to discount that.
It's a species thing, sadly. Here's to hoping that the future will be far less violent...
LordWellington15 I fully agree with you, We should be lucky that the British which were probably the most Humanitarian people DURING THAT ERA were the spearhead of the world and the most successful, If it were the Zulu's dominating the world we would be seeing far worse atrocities happening.
Ethan Brown I'm not sure if I can agree with that. The British did have the benefit of science, technology and the economic upper hand. When you're all comfy, well-fed and safe, it's easier to be the humanitarians. Then there's the issue of the environment determining certain things, and factors we're not exactly privy to.
LordWellington15 Oppression is oppression, no matter who does it. The strong will always be hated as they are the one's who managed to hold the power to oppress and enslave, even though that many attempt it.
Ironically the british changed the "balance of powers" in africa dramatically with their arrival, together with the other colonial powers, and look where africa is today.
The Zulus do get credit for being one of the few African tribes to defeat what was a modern British battalion at that time✊🏾
they just dont make movies like this anymore
UPandUNDER : no you absolutely right there :-)
you son of a bitch you beat me to it I was JUST about make a comment starting with that but hey you said it seeing all of those extras coming over the horizon is awesome but I'd say the movie waterloo is probably one of the greatest last "don't make them like they used to" movie becuz holy shit
They don't make war like this any more.
If this was a modern film only ten of those Zulus would be real.
V.K.S Productions 3:00 this scene is with real Zulu, today it will be some computer bullshit
Battle of Isandlwana was zulu victory However, the British follow-up victories at the famous Battle of Rorke's Drift and the Battle of Kambula restored some British pride. While this retreat presented an opportunity for a Zulu counter-attack deep into Natal, Cetshwayo refused to mount such an attack, his intention being to repulse the British without provoking further reprisals. In 1878, Sir Henry Bartle Frere, British High Commissioner for South Africa, sought to confederate South Africa the same way Canada had been, and felt that this could not be done while there was a powerful and independent Zulu state. So he began to demand reparations for border infractions and forced his subordinates to send carping messages complaining about Cetshwayo's rule, seeking to provoke the Zulu King. They succeeded, but Cetshwayo kept his calm, considering the British to be his friends and being aware of the power of the British army. He did, however, state that he and Frere were equals and since he did not complain about how Frere ruled, the same courtesy should be observed by Frere in regards to Zululand. Eventually, Frere issued an ultimatum that demanded that he should effectively disband his army. His refusal led to the Zulu War in 1879, though he continually sought to make peace after the first battle at Isandhlwana. After an initial crushing but costly Zulu victory over the British at the Battle of Isandlwana, and the failure of the other two columns of the three pronged British attack to make headway - indeed, one was bogged down in the Siege of Eshowe - the British retreated, other columns suffering two further defeats to Zulu armies in the field at the Battle of Intombe and the Battle of Hlobane.
Cowards with guns
In fact Benjamin Disraeli's Government as depicted at the start of Zulu Dawn despite their imperial ambitions in South Africa actually wanted to annex Zululand through negotiations between the Zulus and the British not war, Henry Bartle Frere and Chelmsford in particular provoked this war themselves and without authorization. In fact when the Zulu king met Queen Victoria and the British establishment in 1883 in London there was much sympathy to his situation because of the way these two men treated Zululand.
Conversation between British soldiers just before the battle: "Right mate, I really feel sorry for those bloody bastards stuck at Rorkes Drift. Poor sods are going to miss all the fun! Back home to Blighty by Christmas!"
Conversation DURING the battle: "BLOODY HELL WHERE'D ALL THESE SODDING GOLLIWOGS COME FROM?!?" *gets stabbed*
@@orangejoe204 😂
@@orangejoe204 j
@@orangejoe204 lmao
Very interesting, from this reenactment (although I must not to take sides) the zulu warriors had numbers, stamina and were battle hardy; whereas the British used intelligence and sequences.
My great grandfather was killed at Rorke's Drift. He was camping over the hill and went over to complain about the noise.
I think you are lying.
***** It's an old joke you dimwit.
tragar6 More like, "Quiet down you....arghh".
tragar6
Sometimes it's better for an outsider to mind his or her own business when two parties are fighting to their deaths....
The British army achieved everlasting glory against overwhelming odds. One Zulu Chief remarked “ How few those redcoats were but how they fought - each dropping like a stone in his place”
Вечная слава убивавшим почти безоружных людей!
Британский колониализм неистребим.
Только англосаксы могут гордиться тем, что захватывали и убивали людей в разных концах земли, далеко от своей страны во "славу" своей страны
А теперь удивляются , почему их все ненавидят.
В идеале, было бы замечательно, чтобы саксы сдохли.
Миру было бы спокойней и меньше войн было бы в мире.
Typically English. Brushing up an utterly incompetent failure and slaughter with a stuffy 'those gallant lads...'. Eating their boots no doubt. Win or don't come back. Like Patton I hate losing and losers. Unfortunately we've had a dusty, decrepit one seize power over us now.
Стрелять по дикарям вооружённых копьями то ещё "геройство"😂
Вы и сейчас такие же, года идут ничего не меняется
@@NurAbiNaz_kochegarSays the Russia 😂 Russians also have been savages throughout their history annexing and absorbing other territories through war and immense bloodshed.
@@Yes_Fantasy_419
Именно поэтому индусы меняют название страны, а вам навешали люлей в Крыму, и навешаю ещё раз, дайте время, украинцы скоро кончатся и мы, дикари, придем к вам, и спросим за всё, прошло время копий, теперь и у нас есть оружие.
Настало время платить по долгам!
Готовьтесь, пощады не будет.
When the Zulus said "WOHUHOHOHWHUH"
I felt that
The British commander divided his forces in the looming, but undetected presence of the Zulu army, and the contingent left at Isandlwana made a huge mistake in failing to laager their wagons in a traditional Boer defensive circle. Being fully exposed with no redoubt, they were vulnerable to being overrun, which the Zulu impi did, with alacrity. At the Rourke's Drift mission station, Chard prepared a defense in depth, a series of barrier walls, with a final redoubt, which proved crucial during that battle.
That's a rewriting of actual events.
Chelmsford split his force because the recon patrol encountered a couple thousand Zulu and requested assistance. This was assumed to be the lead elements of the Zulu impi. No other large formations of Zulus were seen anywhere else before.
Chelmsford ordered those at the camp to keep their forces drawn in and act only on the defensive.
No laager was needed at Isandlwana. There were 1,000 riflemen, after Durnford was sent for to reinforce. Had they defended right at the camp in a tighter defensive perimeter they likely would have held out.
Durnford, however, started dispersing forces out far and wide away from the camp and he pressured Pulleine into supporting him.
If Durnford had followed his orders, and those given to Pulleine, there probably wouldn't have been a disaster.
It was actually Durnford who split his forces. Durnford split his 2nd Column and sent both halves out on the attack. Chelmsford actually didn't do that.
There's a lot of ifs in your analysis and apology for a serious blunder of intelligence and defensive competence. You seem to be rewriting as well.
@@lyndoncmp5751
This is a great movie. The ending is inaccurate but it does give the movie a memorable ending. The Zulu acknowledged their bravery and salute them as fellow warriors. When ever I come across this movie I always remember the ending.
Think you got the wrong movie. The Zulu salute is in 'zulu' 👍🏻
This was my favorite battle scene, the amount of people always amazes me.
"Unarmed black men shot by White Soldiers, tonight at 6."
Zulus Won tho
@@brendenmccool1165 The British won the final skirmish.
😂😂😂 good one!
@@brendenmccool1165 the British won you knob head
Unarmed! they have spears and out number the BRITISH 20 to 1.But they went back after and gave them a thorough SLAP!
There was an eclipse during this battle as well. Very interesting. I am unsure of the astrological significance but this was the only battle the Zulu's won. After that they were subjugated and their Chief was taken to Britain as a trophy.
"... Oh nooo... Come all this way to get shot by a bullet from Birmingham" :)
Did Birmingham just shot the kid?
@@bluespy163 no that's the city in the UK that made ammo for the biattle
@@richseidel6597 ah okay thanks
" shoot straight you BASTARDS!'...😂🤣😅
@@bluespy163 why would they bring a kid onto the battlefield..?
Shoutout to my guy who recorded this on his GoPro in 1879
Ikr, too bad we cant see in the Zulus' POV
The movie ZULU has been a favorite of mine since I saw it on the big screen in the days of the drive-in theatre mid 1960’s. I watch it whenever it hits the small screen in my area.
Yep i watched it in awe for the first time in the mid sixties cinema with me dad as a young kid. Used to watching black and white tv programmes on a small tv and then going to watch this huge multi coloured spectacle with booming audio with a great musical theme just had me transfixed. Those bright redcoats contrasting with the zulu attire, including of course the part naked female ones at the krall, being the abiding memory for me as a young kid at the time.
Love how the banging of the Zulu drums morphs into the drums of the soundtrack. Nicely done.
it their shields they are banging that making drum like sound. their shields are like thick leather that can be bang to frighten their enemies
@@armann04the shields were made from cow pelts
@@LordChelmsford1879 Yeah which is a type of leather. It doesn't matter which animal it came from in the end of the day it's still leather.
The quartermaster killed the most of his own.
It was the fault of the British Commanders that this battle ended in the way it did. They didn't take standard precautions as they underestimaed that Zulus and this was the result of it. Rorke's Drift shows what good defences did against the zulus so it could have ended up a lot differently if they planned for a battle.
@Pandas Panda Pan Das They smashed the boxes open with rifle butts, many bent screws on the battlefield to prove this.They were not stupid people.I think they were too spread out ,should have formed a square or got their backs to the hill behind them.Fault of their commanders.
@@bengunn3698 During the second British invasion, their advance did in fact do just that--check out the Battle of Ulundi.
Accounts of the battle indicate that the quartermaster corp did an admirable job of getting ammo to the men. The reason they ran out is because the infantry were too far from the camp where the supply wagons were based. The supplies simply could not get to where they were needed fast enough. The British lines were just too over extended and they were overrun by superior numbers.
@@ethandodd80 Leave the command to those out in the field, not behind a desk, for those within the field know more of what is going on than those back at HQ.
This shows how much technology you got and how much strategty and tactics you learn you can always be defeated or overwhelmed by numbers even if they don't have what you have
Would the British have won if they had AK-47s instead?
@@caraccident5357 but they didn't
@@caraccident5357 still wont win when they dont have artilliry
"Quantity has a Quality all its own"
-- Joe Stalin
"Sir, they're all just standing on the ridge line, shaking their spears!"
"Those aren't their spears ..."
Someone else's joke.
It's such movies that are highly deserved of Oscar awards and the like.
Even game of Thrones last battles looked like shit compared to this.
Some of the shots they got really made it feel like the camp was being overrun by 20000 Zulu.
great comment fellew
Put 5 pairs of sunglasses on while watching this, and it would be a fair comparison! I’m pretty sure the GoT S8 battles were the best, they just forgot to turn on the lights…
Britain's Little Bighorn.
America's Isandlwana
Foxton exactly!
Foxton Little Big Horn predates Isandlwanna. A ship's class gets the name of the first ship in that line. Same logic.
USMarineRifleman0311 It's called switching them up for the sake of comparison you technical swallowing turbonerd.
USMarineRifleman0311 Uh, yeah no shit. I'm aware of the time and dates between each battle; I was comparing their similarities.
It would be at this point that I'd like to remind any British hater that the Zulus where not native to South Africa, they where colonists too
ewdennis The British were doublecrossers invading sovereign land. The Zulus consolidated surrounding tribes and formed an empire that they had the right to rule. The British violated treaties and invaded for diamonds.
The British were in the wrong here.
As is the case for most of 1700-1900
ewdennis bullshit
ewdennis...........omg brit haters ..what next............
ewdennis they were native to the South African continent. The Britain weren’t.
Watched this for years but only recently appreciated the Zulus were just defending their homeland.
I keep waiting for the Monty Python crew to break into a scene
Yes. A bushy mustached Graham Chapman giving orders to "Run Away!!! Run Away!!!" would have been most effective.
"Nobody expects....The Spanish Inquisition!’
And now for something completely different...
“Good evening! And welcome to the middle of the film!”